« more moore | Main | coming soon to a theater near you »

moral relativism

Just a note to certain people:

When engaging in moral relativism, don't attempt to compare the prisoners at Gitmo to the POWs killed this past week in Iraq.

When you see a tape of an American soldier gleefully killing a Gitmo detainee, broadcast on American tv for all to see and applaud like some deranged call to arms, then talk to me.

Until then, shut it.

UPDATE: In response to some comments, The Truth About Gitmo from Damian Penny.

Gitmo is on its way to becoming an extension of Godwin's Law.

UPDATE (3/26):

Gitmo detainees speak:

''The conditions were even better than our homes. We were given three meals a day -- eggs in the morning and meat twice a day; facilities to wash, and if we didn't wash, they'd wash us; and there was even entertainment with video games,'' said Sirajuddin, 24, a taxi driver from Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban. He said he was forcibly conscripted by the militia and captured by a notorious warlord, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who ''sold us to the US.''

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference moral relativism:

» Gitmo Endgame? from Signifying Nothing (Chris Lawrence's weblog)
Michele at A Small Victory quite rightly takes to task those that make an anlogy between our treatment of the... [Read More]

» Ain't nothin' wrong with Gitmo from Inoperable Terran
Michele attracts controversy and idiocy by documenting that prisoners at Gitmo are treated rather well. (Certainly they aren't shot live on al-Jazeera). Morons ensue, but Andrea Harris, Sekimori, and several others all contribute to a large beatdown. G... [Read More]

Comments

OK, Michele. You go on believing that just because they don't show it on television, it doesn't exist. I understand that you would want to block out the fact that atrocities are committed in our name all of the time. But I ask you...why camp x-ray? Why detain people where they are not under our justice system? What do you think happens to them? Do you really think they just "disappear"?

And what of the terror over Baghdad? You went through 9/11 (which had nothing to do with Iraq, in case anyone is misremembering)...how would you have felt as an innocent civilian living through the bombing raids over Baghdad? Do you think you would be pleased?

You might want to read this article. Maybe you'll understand why I've been saying "Oh shit. I'm right, and I am so fucking sad that I am." over and over again for the past 12 plus hours.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921351,00.html

I'm sorry if you were stung by my illusion to moral relativism. In my eyes, you are very misled, and operating out of a feeling of hurt and a need for revenge. But your (and others') hurt and need for revenge and all of the other things that are motivating this war are endangering the lives of my children and the children of Iraq, and i can't stand by and pretend that it's ok.

It was our decision to send our troops there. I'm deeply hurt that they have been captured and killed, but I advocated that they not be sent there in the first place. Dead soldiers really IS the cost of war. Dead civilians should not be. And for every dead soldier in Iraq today, there are at least 10, and up to 20 dead civilians.

How do you justify that, Michele? There is a sick feeling in my stomach, and George Bush is sounding awfully tired.

Oh my god. There is more moral equivalence, no -- sheer stupidity -- in your comment than I have seen in several Guardian articles.

1) we are "endangering" the lives of Iraqi women and children"? Are you trying to tell us that it is better to live under tyranny than to be freed of it? That that's "safety"?

2) You link to the Guardian article about these so-called Iraqi refugees who are going to "fight" the invaders. BULLSHIT on so many levels. You're all over suspicious about what's "really going on" at Gitmo -- yeah, the military must be doing experiments and torturing the prisoners and executing them and drinking their blood, 'cos -- I dunno, because they are the US military and all those Hollywood movies said they were bad. Because there aren't any films of them not doing those things -- talk about a "have you stopped beating your wife today" attitude?

BUT -- you take this article in the Guardian completely at face value, not questioning at all the provenance of these "Iraqi exiles" -- coming from places like JORDAN, which is in deep with all kinds of terrorist groups, and so forth. How do you know these aren't actually AL QAEDA members, or other Palestinian terrorist group members, or even Iraqi members of terrorist groups, or --

Oh forget it. Forget it. Sorry Michele, I don't mean to take up your comments spaces with a diatribe. It's just I keep coming upon things like this -- I can't believe how low people will sink, then they sink even lower. I guess hell has no bottom.

This is one of the worst examples of moral relativism I have ever seen: "And what of the terror over Baghdad? You went through 9/11 (which had nothing to do with Iraq, in case anyone is misremembering)...how would you have felt as an innocent civilian living through the bombing raids over Baghdad? Do you think you would be pleased?"

Baghdad could be a stinking hole in the ground right now, but we are going out of our way to target non-civilians, The very fact that the terrorized civilians in Baghdad are still living should tell you something. The very reason our troops were captured and some were executed is because we are giving the Iraqis every possible chance to surrender.

Just because you can't see Americans torture prisoners or ever hear about it or that we would never tolerate it and, well, that it doesn't happen, doesn't keep the left from believing it does. Give me a break.

Larry, drublood, you seem to be missing the point.

The issue is that Americans will not put torture and murder on as prime-time inspirational programming. Why?

Because, if they did the American public would rise up against them. Despite the endless prattle equating Bush/the US with Hitler, we have no concentration camps. People DON'T just disappear. There aren't mass round-up of dissidents--or purges of political rivals

The closest we've ever come to that is when a liberal icon--FDR, rounded up Japanese, German and Italian citizens and immigrants because they MIGHT sympathize with our enemies.

Many peace protesters ACTUALLY DO sympathize with our enemies--and they walk around free.

Do we actually torture those Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo? I don't know--or care. THEY had no problem with torture when they were DOING it--so why should they complain now?

mr drublood,
I can't believe that you believe what you are saying. I am on the left and am not an advocate of war but afew things you should know.
1. It is not in our culture to do this to prisoners whether they be prisoners of war or jailed citizens. (see movie night listings in sing sing) while it is the culture over the last twenty years while saddam has been in office to kill and terrorize prisoners.
2. We didn't start this war and had many civilians killed in 9-11 why didn't osama go after military bases? why civilians because in jihad we are all infidels and equally as guilty.
3. While I may object to this war, I am a vietnam era vet (meaning I didn't fight just wearing a uniform at the end of it) and I would never desecrate my own people, american citizens who happen to be in the military by shaming them or spitting on them the war that the war protestors spit on me when I had to wear my uniform in town.
4. Dead soldiers is the price of war. I was not sent to Iran when they took our ambassadors hostage for over a year but was ready to go if it came to that. When I took my oath and put on the uniform it was clearly spelled out in the job description. Nobody held a gun to these americans heads and I will not demean the job that they are doing.
5. Finally as to the civilian casualties the leaders of our countries have some say over our fate. Saddam put his people in harms way by not letting them leave and using them as human sheilds. would Mr. Bush (who I don't agree with but I am right on this one) put us in harms way to save his sorry murderous ass. (oops he has not been accused of murder unlike saddam amybe a bad example. No he takes the fight to them with our soldiers to secure your freedom to be sickened but what you are unable to understand, and unwilling to stomach to secure your own survival. If they come to kill you will you fight then? please don't fight shoulder to shoulder with me because I will be fighting to win and will be following the idea that all is fair Etc.
patrick

anyone quoting guadian articles as "proof" of anything is smoking some bad weed.

and since when did you care about the children of iraq? paleese.

Speaking of moral relativism, how come the white American who allegedly fought with the Taliban was given the right to an attorney and able to cop a plea but the brown Americans who are allegedly involved with al Qaeda are kept from meeting with their lawyers and kept in violation of a writ of habeas corpus?

Everyone posting here is wasting his/her time. I got into it with drublood a few months back on Dawn Olsen's blog and got called a racist for dare suggesting that American lives are and should be more important to Americans than Iraqi lives.

Save your breath. Trust me.

anyone quoting guadian articles as "proof" of anything is smoking some bad weed.

Absolutely right; because the American media are completely fair and unbiased.

Oh puh-leeze. I am a "brown" American and I enjoy the exact same rights as every "white" man. Hell, I argued that Walker DID NOT deserve rights as a citizen since, right on your passport it specifically states that joining a foreign military may result in loss of citizenship.

And Rhino - you rest your case because someone wrote an opinon about how much she hates Bush? I'm not sure I understand the post.

I think the issue (to me anyways) is that the US is in violation of 15 parts of the Geneva Convention, and yet they are screaming that Iraq is in violation of 1. When will the US be held accountable for their actions?

Oops, that last sentence looks vaguely sarcastic. I am actually asking what the case is, not picking on Rhino for posting it.

Gee, it looks to me like some of those people from Guantanamo are being let go. Won't somebody stop the insanity?! What horror -- being released!!

Hey, Rhino, whose fault is it that Uday Hussein tortures and kills Olympic athletes for losing? Do you have anything bad to say about that? Since you can't find a way to blame it on America, I'll bet you don't. As long as America isn't at fault, who cares about a bunch of dead fuckin' Iraqis, right?

Oh yes, 15 is a bigger number than 1, so obviously the US is treating our prisoners worse than the Iraqis are.

Nope, no moral judgements there. wait, I think that's the problem...

So in other words, you care not that the US is violating the GC? OK. I can believe that.

Absolutely right; because the American media are completely fair and unbiased.

Thank god a voice of reason! Yes, by and large and despite the incredible leftist slant we Americans percieve, American media is incredibly fair, even handed and unbiased. Now that we've got that cleared up let me just set Drublood, Larry and Tom straight on a few things:

One - we ARE better than them. Now I know that's a tough nut to crack so let me break it down for you -

WE - the American people, American soldiers, generally all things American and all real allies of America (eg. Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain, Italy, Angola).

ARE BETTER - not as good as, not the same, not inferior, nope, we're better. We're smarter, stronger, richer and faster than THEM. Sound arrogant? To fucking bad. Oh, and it's not just us, nope, our real allies are better than THEM too. Wanna know why? I could go on and on about honour, moral strength, doing the right thing even when it isn't popular, but why bother - the simple truth is they're better than THEM simply because they're with us, and if you missed it earlier - we're the BEST!

THAN THEM - What them? The Iraqi's the Grench, the Fermans, The ass-licking Belgians, the backstabbing canucks, the feckless Russkies, the dirty Sauds and the way things are looking the shifty Turks as well. If I missed anyone let me know.

Now why do I thing we really are better than them?

We don't torture even when we're talking about mass murdering scum like Khalid Sheik Mohammad - aka Joe Million Hairs. We could, but then we'd be just like THEM. Iraqui's execute our POWs, Iraqi's violate the laws of war by faking surrenders and dressing as civilians to wage war and yet we're still endangering our troops by accepting their surrenders. Even when we know they're probably going to take a few shots at us. Why? Because we're better than them.

In Iraq, if you criticize Saddam you are tied to a post and your tongue is cut out so you can bleed to death in public, or if you're lucky you'll come home to find a tape of your daughter being raped and brutalized by a gang of Saddam's happy go lucky henchmen. In America you can shit on the sidewalk and screamk for a revolution all the while you're right to be an ungrateful jackass is protected by law - why? Because we're better than them.

Get the point? God I hope so, because I am officially at my limit with fucktards like Drublood, Larry and Tom. I'm tired of freeloading ungrateful malcontents whose biggest concerns are getting a little more cinnamon on their double half calf extra foam fucking frapacino and who's turn it is to bring the vegetarian Hors Douvres to the next meeting of the feminist men's cooperative for peaceful action against the patriarchy. Christ on a biscuit, I wouldn't cross the road to piss on the three of ya' if you were on fire so I don't know why I even bother.

Holy shit, Robert Modean is my new Buddha.

Robert,
Don't hold anything bank, now, OK?

MonkeyPants
Imperial Falconer

I actually don't like frapacinos.

phil/robb: what the hell are you talking about? in case you missed it, i was slamming drublood. the quote was from his site, saying that if saddam gasses his own people than we're to blame. that's the crack pipe a' talkin, i'm telling you.

don't get me started on saddam's little fuckstick sons-of-a-whore.

oh, and the "either way, we are guilty" bullshit... spare me of that song and dance.

nc: yeah, he pulled the same shit a while back with jim mccormick - calling him a racist and all for voicing his opinions...

tom: anyone who thinks that michael moore's acceptance speech was a, "breathe of fresh air" is a douche bag. period.

robert: amen to that!

I love forumns where people can call each other douche bags and claim they are "at their limits" while all of their hideous hatred is safely hidden behind a computer screen.

Trolling is a sin Tom. Besides, you're not talking to people who are subject only to the American media, thats the whole point behind The Command Post, a collection of global sources to allow readers as much information as possible to make up their own minds without having to sit through press conferences and videophonecalls from anal-embedded reporters.

I suppose the argument that the Geneva Convention doesn't protect terrorists as terrorists can't be quantified as prisoners of war (because remember kids, they target civilian women and children) doesn't mean anything to you either?

i stick by my statement: anyone who drools all over michael moore's "acccomplishments" on his little site, such as you so eagerly do, is... a douche bag. sorry, but that's about all of the respect for you that i can muster at present.

and trust me, i'd be more than happy to step away from my keyboard little guy...

Geez, Bob-- can I call you Bob?

You certainly cover a lot of ground with that US and THEM thing. It sure would make life simple if things were so clear cut, avoid all that nasty thinking and decision making.

The only problem is it's utter rubbish.

For example, Rachel Corrie was one of US until she behaved in a way inconsistent with the way we act-- and in the process clearly proved she wasn't particulary smart or fast. Sgt. Akbar was about as part of US as one could hope to be... but he really wasn't, was he?

Those politicians and protesters who speak out against the war.. US or THEM? It hard to say just who is where in your black and white world even amongst our own people, yet you feel entirely comfortable judging entire nations.

Canada was part of US once (I recall a friendly fire incident) but now they're THEM. Spain on the other hand was clearly THEM under Franco but now they are US. Saudi Arabia... seems like a toss up depending on the political climate and/or price of oil... US and THEM.

Now I don't agree with comparisons between Gitmo and Iraqi treatment of prisoners. Gitmo scares me far more than the Iraqis. Gitmo represents the tip of an iceberg where anyone, anyplace can be declared an enemy non-combatant and held without charge for indefinate periods. At least I think that's possible but nobody really knows because the decisions are made by secret courts.

Recently drafted and pending legislation allows searches without warrant, hinders our right to travel unimpeded and interferes with privacy on a wholesale scale. If the current adminsitration prevails in the courts and Congress we will have a legal system that leaves US quite close to THEM.

D, who's trolling? I made a statement and stood behind it, without slinging names at people. I seriously try to engage discussions without it deteriorating to name-calling and naked hatred (isn't that what these comment thingies are for?).

Rhino, why do I (the "little guy" care that you will step away from your keyboard? Is that tough-guy innuendo? I'm actually planning on stepping away from mine shortly and enjoying the nice weather. I wish you peace and love.

Ya’ know Tom, I was gonna make a nice little post about moral relativism, the inhuman brutality of totalitarian regimes and how you couldn’t find your ass with both hands and a map, but why bother?

Instead I’d like to focus on why you – or more precisely- people like you, piss me off. So Tom, if you would just shut it, climb down off your high horse, pull that sanctimonious stick out of your ass and embrace this very real and simple truth: you are WRONG.

You and everyone who thinks like you – you’re all wrong. You’ve got the common sense of a lemming and the moral compass of Clinton in a hot tub.

You’re actually arguing moral equivalence in support of a regime that employs rape squads, professional assassins, gasses its own people, has an active policy of ethnic cleansing, performs medical experiments on political prisoners, tests bio weapons out on its own populous, hell the atrocities go on and on, but you know what’s really bugs the crap out of me?

Willful Ignorance.

Everything about you, everything you advocate and yammer on about, reeks of the typical self-involved liberalism I've encountered so often. People with no fuckin' clue what its like to live or work outside the US run around spouting the most ridiculous rhetoric, taking the most bizarre anti-American positions and acting as if Americans are unenlightened. I've lived out in the real world - both here in the states and abroad - long enough to know how nasty, brutish and shitty life can be if you leave people like Hussein go unchecked and there's nothing I can say that will change your mind and that's what pisses me off.

To be blunt - You don't know shit, you can't be told shit and when shit hits the fan you'll be the first to start cryin’ "Why didn't they do something!" You're not a hypocrite, you’re a hot-house orchid - one of those fragile little flowers that dies when removed from the hot-house and is exposed to the outside.

That's what you are - a hot-house anti-war leftist, whose arguments represent the rarified atmosphere of the liberal left, and as long as you refuse to look at the truth that's what you'll remain.

And mostly I think you piss me off because part of you knows this but you'd rather remain an ignorant little malcontent whose own bloated ego and sense of moral superiority are right at home in the liberal left's hot-house, than join the rationalists (both left and right) and deal with the problems at hand. In my book that makes you both a freeloader and a fool - and I suffer neither gladly.

Gosh Al, No - you haven't earned the right to call me Bob, you can call me Robert or Mr. Modean or simply address me as Sir.

Now to straighten a few things out, read what I wrote for Tom. Twice. Now go away.

You’re actually arguing moral equivalence in support of a regime that employs rape squads,

Willful ignorance assumes that I actually support Hussein. How convenient it is to boil down my argument into an erroneous assumption that I even tacitly support a murderous dictator. Use your head to think in terms other than black/white, I know you have it in you. Not that I even need to point it out, but for those slow on the uptake: I don't support Hussein.

To be blunt - You don't know shit, you can't be told shit

I could make a comment about those in glass houses, but...

There is such hatred and anger in everything else you said, I have no need to dignify it. You are so inflamed that some Americans would actually use their rights in a manner that you disagree with.

But let's go back to the beginning of your hateful diatribe.

Instead I’d like to focus on why you – or more precisely- people like you, piss me off.

Why focus on me (or people like me)? You don't even focus on our argument. You can't even wrap your head around it. You just focus on the fact that we dare to have an argument and it pisses you off.

So Tom, if you would just shut it, climb down off your high horse, pull that sanctimonious stick out of your ass and embrace this very real and simple truth: you are WRONG.

No. That simple. No. I won't shut it. I won't "embrace" YOUR "truth" that I am wrong because some hate-filled, bigoted yahoo on a blog message board slammed me with a barrage of insults. I don't claim to know all the answers, I just know what my heart and my senses tell me. You go on thinking that you're right. Have fun. In your world you are and that's all well and good. All I do is question and point out things that I think are wrong. My questioning obviously brings out a pugilistic anger within people like you and the fact that you don't even try to control that is just sad. I know you must be a better person than you appear from your comments.

You go on looking at the world as US vs. Them. See how far it gets you. Go ahead and assume that everybody like me is some "hothouse flower." I don't have to live in your head.

Namaste.

"I just know what my heart and my senses tell me. "

I know my heart and senses tell me the earth is flat. I actually remember being told otherwise as a child and genuinely not believing it.

But OK, you say you dare to have an argument, so what is it? I've yet to hear anything that qualifies from the "antiwar" camp: by that I mean an actual argument, using evidence and logic, not a kneejerking childish tantrum.

Tom, baby, check it out:

If you're against physical removal of Saddam from Iraq, then you're for him staying there.

Yes, slugger, it really is that simple! If you don't agree, then one of two conditions must be true. Either you're willfully ignorant, as has been said, or you're just incapable of reason.

One or the other!

And if you want to make the claim that you're not FOR Saddam staying in power, and you're also not FOR his removal, then it's up to you, tiger, to supply us, the unenlightened, with an alternative!

Once again: Yes, it really is that simple!

So.. I guess you people dont support Saddam, but you do support burning the American flag because you don't like the current president.

Encourage your friends to register to vote and don't re-elect him.
Do something productive with your time rather than sitting and having a "comment war".

That's right, Tom. You don't have anything consturctive to add, you just "know what (your) heart and my senses" tell you (feel, emote). Frankly, I didn't get hatred from Robert, but your bitter, bitter world is palpable.

Now Bobby, surely you don't think your little tirade has any relevance to anything I actually said, do you?

Once again, you insist on painting the world with broad sweeping brushstrokes, passing judgement on all who disagree with you. Hey now, don't let any inconvenient facts get in your way, don't let the minor detail you are judging people you know nothing about interfere with your rhetoric. It sounds so damn good and you so clearly enjoy listening to yourself.

Funny how reasoned and relatively polite explanations of dissenting views bring on this kind of frothing at the mouth response.

When it comes to 'self-involvement', believe you me, the liberals have nothing on you. So far you have done an admirable job insulting others and revealing yourself as mean spirited and unwilling to discuss anything except what Bob thinks about other people. Your hubris is astounding.

If at anytime you feel like discussing something I said let me know. In the meantime my five year old keeps yelling at her brother, "I'm right. Your wrong. Your a poopy head." She pretty much says the same thing you do, just in far fewer words.

Sheez, why me? Now look Al note how I called you Al and not Alice or just plain Jackass? See that's because you're called Al...jackass.

Anyway, I just got up and checked - walked all the way down tha goddamn hall to the john and verified, just for you, that no, infact I am not frothing at the mouth. See that would indicate I cared, deeply and passionately cared, about anything you said. Guess what, I don't.

See a meaningful conversation can only occur when both people are invested in it. You're just deluding yourself if you think I'm invested in an argument with you, because that would imply I consider you worth my time. Guess what, I don't. See, that was the beauty of my simple yet dismissive post:

...read what I wrote for Tom. Twice. Now go away.

Of course its ruined now, because you were too self-involved to see the funny. Or at least what I saw as the funny, which from my perspective is pretty much what counts. Oh, but I'm not self involved - I just recognize a losing proposition, like arguing with the morally obtuse (like you) or walking emoticons (like Tom).

BTW, Alice, that word...relevance? I don't think it means, what you think it means. OK? Luvya! Buh-Bye!

PS - Get her working on that vocabulary now, by the time I was five I'd already been chastised by my mother for calling my brother (11 years my senior) an ignorant asshole and breaking his nose with a whiffle ball bat.

Ah Bob... I'm disappointed. Making fun of my name? I expected more.

Sheez, why me?
It may be your lucky day or maybe it's just that people are drawn to you based upon your warm and welcoming personality. Yeah, that's it.

Oddly enough, I tend to agree about the futilty of prolonging this. Not because I consider you 'unworthy'-- in all honesty, I don't consider you at all-- but because attempting to have any sort of reasonable disgreement with a zealot is impossible. See, what you have going for you is the utter conviction that you are right, you have faith in whatever piece of moral high ground you have staked out and I'm not about to try and reason with an idealogue.

You guys just don't think like normal people. You see everything in black and white and are unable to discern the shades of grey that nuance an individuals morality and ethics.

You know, like the Pal suicide bombers, the Al-Qaeda fanatics and the totalitarian Iraqi regime. They think the exact same way you do, just from the other end of the spectrum. They too share a total conviction of their righteousness in the face of all common sense. Fanaticism is an ugly thing from any angle.

BTW, thanks for the child rearing advice. I'm sure your early mastery of profanity has served you well in life. I'll have to pass on the bat thing, I'm afraid that I would be quite concerned about a five year old who could muster that type of rage (not to mention reach that high). Was Dad proud when Little Bobby busted his first head? How'd the cats in your neighborhood make out?

This reminds of the good old days mocking Rush. You may not remember him. He was another right wing loudmouth, once relevant (there's that word again, dang, forgot to look it up) but as the climate changed he became a parody of himself. You could take a lesson there, your brand of intolerance may be fashionable now but eventually we'll come to our collective senses and you'll be swept right back into the darkest recesses of the American psyche.

Your welcome to the last word, I'm bored now.

Cool. I have a penis now. Thanks, guys!

"Your welcome to the last word, I'm bored now. "

What a coincidence. That's EXACTLY how I felt reading your post.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, seems to be the crux of dru's "issues." Thankyewandgoodnight.

Um....weird question, didn't you have a special ritual or celebration for those times when you've been delinked? Because of my so-called callousness of being pro-war, I was just informed I was being delinked and want to celebrate...

Da Goddess
I believe the appropriate celebretory rights for a de-linking require a fat guinea hen, nettles, an article of the forsaken faith, the nectar of heaven and an altar to sacrifice them on. Of course it would be hard to come up with all this without some prior planning so in a pinch I've gotten by with a bucket of KFC xtra crispy, some lousianne hot sauce, a "Free Mumia" tee shirt, a card table and a bottle of Jose Cuervo Tradicional.

Sekimori - priceless

Al - You know nothing about me, or apearently the rhetorical devices of hyperbole, antiphrasis and sarcasm. You have however, mastered how to drone on and on without actually making a point anyone cares about, good for you!. BTW, calling me anything other than Robert, Mr. Modean or Sir - that is of course your option but it makes you no less a jackass. Oh, and since I got the last word in, does that mean I won? Just curious.

Robert, I'd say you're the winner. Of course, you were the winner in my eyes with your first post.

A shot of Crown in your honor, Goddess! Congratulations on such a blessed event!

You know, I just realized something. If the peace mooo-vement actually believes that all we have to do is get along to make the world a better place, they apparently haven't read these message boards.

Both sides HATE each other blindy. They call each other names. They slander each other's political party like it's a team sport. "My team is better than yours". There's the overuse of foul language. Penis references in front of women. Ted Rall. Asshats... You name it.

Apparently, we can't even find peace by ourselves with ourselves. We're preprogrammed to defend our views to the dying breath. All of us, myself included, find anger at the words of others. This current war will probably not take my life, but the utter realization that the human race is doomed to destroy itself, by action or inaction, evident in these posts is killing me nonetheless.

I want to quit. I want to walk away and not read any more of this. But if I do, I am afraid I will become like those who I argue with. Blind, uninformed. But I probably be more "at peace" with ignorance, right?

I'm so upset, I can't even close my bold tags correctly.....

Robb, never read usenet political groups frequented by Americans, you'll end up killing yourself. Blogs are INFINITELY better because real assholes end up getting banned.

Eeek dispite your end comment, you didn't end the bold text.

By the way I mentioned Americans in that last post because I've noticed that Canadian news groups can be much better than American ones, just as I've noticed that Canadian Parliments (provincial- whatchamacallits) can have honest debates and discussions in a way that I've NEVER seen Americans able to have.

But even though I don't see how we can accomplish so much when we can never exchange information with people we disagree with, somehow we DO manage it.

We're not the best, but we're not the worst either.

Honest debates in Canadian parliaments? The Hell?

You mean the same Parliament where lying is acceptable behaviour, but calling someone on it gets you tossed from the House until you apologize? That Parliament?

Please.

I've watched Canadian parliamentary debates, and most of them have as much "honesty" involved as a game of three-card-monty.

Or do you not remember how, for example, during the HRDC scandal, any attempt by the opposition would be answered not with a response to the question, but with a list of government projects in that member's riding to send an unsubtle 'don't rock the gravy train' warning?

Please, don't mistake superficial politeness and calm for 'honest debate'.

Actually I was talking about a couple of debates I saw, one in the Saskatchewan parliament and one, I think it was Alberta years ago.

I don't claim that honest debate is common in Canada, but that it's possible - and since I've NEVER seen the like in the United States, I would guess that it's NOT possible here. Here people insist on winning points, always. Here people it's not acceptable to change your mind in public. I don't know what it is. But something deep is different.

Well, sure, there's no moral comparison. They treat prisoners vastly worse than we do. But invoking the Geneva Convention, as the administration does, isn't about moral relativism, it's about law.

One thing might be morally worse than the other, but they both might be illegal.

That's a glance toward Cuba ought to proceed running off at the mouth about criminal trials.

Back to Gitmo. It worries me that, as far as I know, we're going to hold some Afgani soldiers indefiniately because we can't tell the difference between them and Al Qa'eda members.

I understand that even a few terrorists can be dangerous, but that doesn't really excuse holding the others who are no doubt mixed in.

Rush is irrelevant now? I prefer Neal Boortz myself, but Limbaugh still has 20 million listeners, something nobody even remotely on the left can boast (and not for lack of trying).

While I thoroughly enjoy blogging, my favorite activity is reading the ingorant, ill-informed, half-ass, half-wit comments from a bunch of armchair pundits.

You're all forgetting a simple fact. The US and Iraq were among the countries that agreed to the terms of the Geneva Convention - arguably a rather useless document from the outset.

Nonetheless, both countries agreed to the terms. And both have violated the rules repeatedly over the years, and in recent months.

Fact is, there are no rules to war. It's dirty, it's ugly, and like it or not, prisoners will be mistreated or worse. If you want rules - go play a game of chess.

Do you have eyes in your heads, did you see any american POWS handcuffed , Blindfolded lying in the mud like animals? Shame on you that think the US gov't is so moral.

Why are they whining now ,about the geneva con. when the whole world was asking sevaral mths. ago about it. Yes ...you righteous MFs .

The world is looking at us now ,and the hypocracy, and selective morality is staring us in the face.

Do you have eyes in your heads, did you see any american POWS handcuffed , Blindfolded lying in the mud like animals? Shame on you that think the US gov't is so moral.

Why are they whining now ,about the geneva con. when the whole world was asking sevaral mths. ago about it. Yes ...you righteous MFs .

The world is looking at us now ,and the hypocracy, and selective morality is staring us in the face.

I have a simple, if unsatisfying answer to the entire problem of Gitmo.

According to the Geneva Convention, prisoners are to be released when the conflict is over. That hasn't happened yet. Or are you claiming that Al-Queda has surrendured?

I'm not familiar with the surrendurs in WWII, but I'm fairly certain we didn't release Italian prisoners before Germany surrendured. And even in that case, we could at least usually tell the German captives from the Italian ones.

The Geneva convention wasn't written with non-nations in mind. We are following the conventions, but they don't apply well to the situation.

Oh, and mister namesless moron, I'm pretty sure that being handcuffing and blindfolding prisoners isn't outlawed or immoral, so you must be pissing all over yourself about the 'lying in mud" part. I'd raise an eyebrow if they were kept like that for long periods of time, but somehow I doubt this is the case.

Would you prefer that we whip them across the soles of their feet, like the Taliban did to people who listened to music? Nitwit.

Cultivated people foster what is good in others, not what is bad. Petty people do the opposite.

I,m sick and tired of hearing "we're going to be very upset if you attack the Shrine" kind of crap.
The insurgents have selected the battleground and we should eliminate them whereever they may run and hide.
Where is the international "Rule" that states we must not damage the mosques, even though they fire at our trops from that supposed sanctuary?