Historical context applied to Current Events

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1996/pomo-terror.htm

15 seconds on Google. Step up to the information age, Okie.

You will note that the president of France, the Prime minister of Spain, the President of America, and the king of Italy were all killed by terrorists in the space of just a few years. I think that qualifies as a huge problem, thanks very much. And we didn't build secret prisons or torture people to stop it.

Cycloptichorn

You haven't begun to demonstrate that problem is anywhere close to the one we are dealing with, in scope or type.

Let me get this straight. Terrorists at the time manage to assasinate many different heads of state, and bombs were going off in America left and right; but it's not the scope of what we're dealing with today?

Have any of our top leadership been harmed by terrorism? Any western nation? Your argument that today's problem is worse than problems which were in the past is ludicrous, simply ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

Whens the last time terrorists killed close to 3,000, crashed the Pentagon, and probably aimed at taking out the White House?

So, Okie, do you think that American concepts of freedom and justice end at the water's edge? If so, do you think we were wrong to sign the Geneva Convention?

Yes they end on the battlefield, not by our choice, but by the choice of reality, plain and simple. We make a pretty good effort even given the handicaps given us. We didn't ask for the conditions, Setanta, but we have to cope with them.

Again I ask, you Setanta or anyone else that wants to take the question, if you were president, how would you handle enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan? Turn them loose or bring them back to this country and give them full rights as citizens to a trial as innocent until proven guilty? Or do it reasonably as the Bush administration is doing, try to evolve and develop a reasonable and measured policy for a very prickly and unique problem that we have not encountered before on this scale. I want a straight answer. No more equivocating and criticizing the administration over trumped up, fictitious, and impractical scenarios. Remember, I am a citizen and I am holding you responsible as my president to keep the country safe, and that is your number one priority as president.

Setanta wrote:

So, Okie, do you think that American concepts of freedom and justice end at the water's edge? If so, do you think we were wrong to sign the Geneva Convention?

okie wrote:

Yes they end on the battlefield, not by our choice, but by the choice of reality, plain and simple. We make a pretty good effort even given the handicaps given us. We didn't ask for the conditions, Setanta, but we have to cope with them.

okie, you speak of "handicaps" as if somebody else was imposing something on you. But don't you think that by

a) signing the Geneva Conventions and
b) invading Afghanistan and Iraq

you did ask for the conditions of finding your military involved in a war and still having the obligation of following the regulations of the Geneva Conventions?

What are you arguing?

My position is clear. In contrast to history, we are not out of line. Where have we done anything significantly different for problems that have happened before? Terrorism in terms of scope and seriousness is a new and different problem. Do you have any evidence that we have acted inappropriately in comparison to past actions?

No, the number one priority of the President is that he (or she) will, as he (or she) swears or affirms to do when inaugurated: " . . . to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."--which is a direct quote from the Constitution.

Equating piracy at sea to 911 is ludicrous, Setanta. Get serious.

The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

We did not ask for terrorists to come over here and kill thousands and do millions or billions worth of damage. And we didn't ask for plotters to hide out in Afghanistan at the invitation and protection of the Taliban. And we did not ask for such people to not claim any allegiance to any country or to not wear any uniform. We did not ask for an enemy that is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention or an enemy that totally ignores any of its agreements.

If terrorists want to be protected by the Geneva conventions, they should act accordingly. Otherwise they do not apply to them.

The Geneva conventions are to protect soldiers and civilians, not terrorists.

My position is clear. In contrast to history, we are not out of line.

This is bloody ridiculous. Okie starts a thread entitled "Historical context applied to Current Events," and then when someone applies historical context, he squeals and says it's not the same.

Yup.

Quote:

My position is clear. In contrast to history, we are not out of line.

With the difference being, we have evolved as both a society and as a people away from much of the barbarism of our history. Most Americans see this as a positive occurrence, but you seem to see it as a negative one.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yup.

Quote:

My position is clear. In contrast to history, we are not out of line.

With the difference being, we have evolved as both a society and as a people away from much of the barbarism of our history. Most Americans see this as a positive occurrence, but you seem to see it as a negative one.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, it would be nice if all cultures could do that, wouldn't it cyclops?

McGentrix wrote:

If terrorists want to be protected by the Geneva conventions, they should act accordingly. Otherwise they do not apply to them.

The Geneva conventions are to protect soldiers and civilians, not terrorists.

This is the same stupidity for which i already called Okie. How do you know they're terrorists, McWhitey? Just because you say so? We should ignore the terms of the Geneva Convention just because McWhitey says they're all terrorists?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yup.

Quote:

My position is clear. In contrast to history, we are not out of line.

With the difference being, we have evolved as both a society and as a people away from much of the barbarism of our history. Most Americans see this as a positive occurrence, but you seem to see it as a negative one.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, it would be nice if all cultures could do that, wouldn't it cyclops?

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yup.

Quote:

My position is clear. In contrast to history, we are not out of line.

With the difference being, we have evolved as both a society and as a people away from much of the barbarism of our history. Most Americans see this as a positive occurrence, but you seem to see it as a negative one.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, it would be nice if all cultures could do that, wouldn't it cyclops?

So you agree that Christians should abandon their morals, because others don't live up to them?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yup.

Quote:

My position is clear. In contrast to history, we are not out of line.

With the difference being, we have evolved as both a society and as a people away from much of the barbarism of our history. Most Americans see this as a positive occurrence, but you seem to see it as a negative one.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, it would be nice if all cultures could do that, wouldn't it cyclops?

So you agree that Christians should abandon their morals, because others don't live up to them?

Cycloptichorn

Did I say that? I guess this begs the question, do you believe war is ever necessary?