Page 1 of 1

Democracy At The Tip Of A Sword

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:49 pm
by Grendel
Another on of those interesting articles. Looks like there're still some ppl w/ a brain left in germany ;)

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 79,00.html
George W. Bush's Infectious Virus

By Claus Christian Malzahn in Berlin

The US is guilty of war crimes in Iraq and Guantanamo. It's not the first time. The US also committed war crimes in World War II. But the greater legacy of American involvement in the war against Hitler was democracy in Germany. Could the same thing now be happening in Iraq and the Middle East?

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:49 am
by dissent
The US is guilty of war crimes ...

Really? Did I take a nap and miss the trial? Dang!
Thanks for clearing that up for me, Herr Mahlzahn. :roll:

Yeah, it's a crime when a bunch of barbarians show up at your gate, or your good neighbor's gate, and proceed to rape and pillage, and that you should then feel compelled to also use violence to stop this behavior. Yeah, war sucks, but sometimes you just gotta defend yourself or your neighbor. Or go extinct. Some choice.

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:07 am
by Top Gun
Grendel, did you even read the whole article? The author's saying that, even though some things have been screwed up in Iraq/Guantanamo, the overall result of the push for democracy has had good effects, both in that particular country and its neighbors. The same is true in the statements about Patton. The main problem I have with the article, though, is that Abu Ghraib was condoned by Bush somehow; I also think that applying the definition of "war crimes" to Guantanamo is rather overexaggerating the situation ther. (Just as a point of reference, I'm no fan of the legal limbo that the "enemy combatants" there are in; I say charge and convict them in criminal court or let them go.) Also, he suggests that Colin Powell was "forced" to step down; last time I checked, that wasn't the case.

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:36 am
by Genghis
Interesting, I can take exception with every part of TG's post.
Top Gun wrote:Grendel, did you even read the whole article? The author's saying that, even though some things have been screwed up in Iraq/Guantanamo, the overall result of the push for democracy has had good effects, both in that particular country and its neighbors.
The quotation from the article Grendel selected shows that he did indeed get the point. Or didn't you read Grendel's whole post? I really don't understand why you would accuse him of not reading the whole article.
The main problem I have with the article, though, is that Abu Ghraib was condoned by Bush somehow;
Perhaps not Bush himself, but it is unrealistic to believe the humiliation tactics were't known about at very high levels. Keep in mind that Bush does populate his own administration, so they will tend to make decisions that he is inclined to agree with. Finally, don't forget that it is their job to insulate him from anything too damaging while they are carrying out his will.
I also think that applying the definition of "war crimes" to Guantanamo is rather overexaggerating the situation ther.


By the letter of the law of the Geneva convention, I wouldn't be surprised if "war crimes" is the appropriate term. However, the Geneva convention is becoming outdated. The idea of "civilized warfare" is hard to apply when dealing with our latest enemy.
(Just as a point of reference, I'm no fan of the legal limbo that the "enemy combatants" there are in; I say charge and convict them in criminal court or let them go.)
Spies, high-ranking officers, and political prisoners have always been treated differently from regular soldiers. In this war, it is uncommonly difficult to dermine who is who. At the same time, due to the nature of this war, we are extremely ineffective unless we have good intel. So it's not as black and white as convicting or releasing them.
Also, he suggests that Colin Powell was "forced" to step down; last time I checked, that wasn't the case.
No cabinet official is ever fired; they all resign. This is a matter of politeness. Many of them, however, are forced out, either explicitly by requesting their resignation, or implicitly by forcing them to do things that are morally repulsive to them. The fact is, we'll never know exactly why Powell left, but we can make some pretty good guesses.

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:53 pm
by Mobius
Genghis wrote: The idea of "civilized warfare" is hard to apply when dealing with our latest enemy.
The problem is this: America *MUST* maintain the moral high ground in ANY conflict. Once this position is lost (as in Abu Ghraib) then you have lost the battle for "hearts and minds" - not only in the occupied country - but in the eyes of the rest of the world.

It's no use standing up and shouting "BUT THE OTHER GUY DOESN'T FIGHT FAIR!!" Your Mommy might understand, but the rest of the world does NOT.

It doesn't matter how ugly the other guy gets, you have to stand above it.

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:33 pm
by woodchip
Mobman, get your head out from under the sheep skinned hat. Where did any of Americas leaders condone A.G.? Or are they supposed to micro manage each and every individual soldier? Crap happens in war. The fire bombing of Dresden is one instance. Marines taking no prisoner's on Okinawa was another. Both of my examples are actions taken by military men and not America's civilian leadership. Find me a more moral country in time of war than the USA.

Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:09 am
by Top Gun
I did read Grendel's whole post; I just drew the wrong conclusion from it. Looking back at it, I can see what he meant. Sorry about that.