Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Political Correctness interferences in war

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    As far as I am aware, what Joe suggested is not corruption. This is how governments operate everywhere. Give the other side a little of what they want and they will let you do what you want in peace. Horse-trading/bargaining yes...corruption...no.


  • Options
    #33
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Ludo wrote: »
    As far as I am aware, what Joe suggested is not corruption. This is how governments operate everywhere. Give the other side a little of what they want and they will let you do what you want in peace. Horse-trading/bargaining yes...corruption...no.

    He must produce a source for the claim regardless, however.


  • Options
    #34
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    I have political acquaintances and won’t divulge the source. Not that I can’t, but I won’t. Suffice it to say I wish I got to see the Superbowl on television where he did. Therefore as GuanYin has rightfully noted, I withdraw the statement.

    But Ludo is also correct in his statement that this is not considered government corruption. Everything in government with a two party system involves negotiations, and some give and take by both sides.


  • Options
    #35
    banquo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    Bicameral ftw tbh.


  • Options
    #36
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    banquo wrote: »
    Bicameral ftw tbh.

    ???? I wish I was more savvy in internet speak.

    And here is an example of obvious government negotiations and compromises, that I wouldn’t consider to be corruption. Just some food for thought... why would Congress include a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits, $2.7 billion in emergency flood relief for the Midwest, and tens of billions of dollars for food aid, anti-drug enforcement, Louisiana levee repairs, and many other items, into a war spending bill?
    (this one I will supply a source)http://www.nysun.com/national/bush-signs-162-billion-war-spending-bill/80963/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Thats not exactly the same league of bribery you were alluding to in a previous post. That bill back in June was more like the Democrats saying 'look, if youre ready to release a bunch of funds, we're not backing it unless some of that spending goes to domestic interests'. Theres nothing behind-the-scenes or unethical about it.

    They tried to get that bill signed off for 6 weeks or so and I followed it for most of it - the bill started as a pure military spending bill, the dems wouldnt sign it. Then they drafted one with spending and a timeline - yeah we know how that went. And then back and forth until they decided on the bill as it stood. It was a very transparent process, and if you wanted you could have watched the whole spiel unfold on CSPAN.

    In your earlier post you made it sound like bush went up to teddy kennedy in a dark hallway and said 'if you support this spending bill, I'll buy you a mercedes and put your grand kids through college under the table'. Frankly, if thats really what you think, then you're not getting any of the facts, and youve filled in the gaps for yourself with hollywoodesque conspiracy theories.


  • Options
    #38
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    ???? I (.....)/80963/

    You're trying to have your cake and eat it. Stop.


  • Options
    #39
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Overheal wrote: »
    Thats not exactly the same league of bribery you were alluding to in a previous post.

    Yeah, you're right... bad and mean spirited choice of words on my part. I guess for now on I've got to use the "IMO" term more.


  • Options
    #40
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,428 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    ???? I wish I was more savvy in internet speak.

    And here is an example of obvious government negotiations and compromises, that I wouldn’t consider to be corruption. Just some food for thought... why would Congress include a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits, $2.7 billion in emergency flood relief for the Midwest, and tens of billions of dollars for food aid, anti-drug enforcement, Louisiana levee repairs, and many other items, into a war spending bill?
    (this one I will supply a source)http://www.nysun.com/national/bush-signs-162-billion-war-spending-bill/80963/
    I think its called pork barrelling and piggy backing and for some reason American governments have been doing it for a long time.


  • Options
    #41
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Matt Holck wrote: »
    I want to believe that
    but since I'm not allowed to see who is detained and why,
    I don't have the evidence to place any trust in the authorities

    "I'm from the goverment, and I'm here to help!"

    It's true though. There should be plenty of stories on the web about the "Revolving Doors", wherin insurgents are detained and then immediately put back out onto the streets either for lack of evidence, or just through the vagaries of the Iraqi criminal justice system. And of course, I've seen it happen, for what my personal observations are worth.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    is it then your opinion NTM that anyone in Gitmo would be there for a good reason? I'm willing to accept that (and I'd even love to take Bush on his word that everything being done is legal) but still can't understand that if that were the case why they just simply aren't tried and prosecuted.

    In the matt lauer interview in the gitmo thread bush says he doesnt want the enemy to adjust by discussing their tactics: would that stopped them from holding closed hearings that we the people could later be made of aware of? I mean I could live happily knowing only congressman and senators and the judiciary were privy to the details, but if they all agreed on the verdict ("its all square folks") I could go home and have a hot dog.


  • Options
    #43
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    Overheal wrote: »

    In the matt lauer interview in the gitmo thread bush says he doesnt want the enemy to adjust by discussing their tactics:.


    I think if the enemy is organized they will know which members of their group are missing.

    I think this would only lead to the public knowing less about the enemy


  • Options
    #44
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Matt Holck wrote: »
    I think if the enemy is organized they will know which members of their group are missing.

    I think this would only lead to the public knowing less about the enemy
    he was referring to their tactics regarding torture/interrogation, and not wanted the 'enemy' to train a resistance to the methods.


  • Options
    #45
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    I wish the government would srop playing spy vrs spy


  • Options
    #46
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Overheal wrote: »
    is it then your opinion NTM that anyone in Gitmo would be there for a good reason? I'm willing to accept that (and I'd even love to take Bush on his word that everything being done is legal) but still can't understand that if that were the case why they just simply aren't tried and prosecuted.

    I have little doubt that there are probably some people in Gitmo who shouldn't be. It's a problem of the nature of the conflict. Is Gitmo a POW camp or a criminal detention facility? If it's a POW camp (And I seem to recall something about the Geneva conventions supposedly applying to Gitmo, implying that it is), then the whole talk of trials is really just for public consciousness: How many prisoners captured in warfare and held in POW camps are tried for their acts? "You, Hauptfeldwebel Dieters, stand accused of knowingly and deliberately taking up arms against His Majesty, King George in North Africa, to wit, Tobruk and El Alamein..." They aren't. They're just captured, and held for the duration, unless there's a prisoner exchange. However, in most wars, the opposition is usually nice enough to wear a uniform making this segregation easy.

    On the other hand, if it's a criminal detention facility, what's the crime? Taking up arms against foreign militaries in your own country? I doubt that's criminal, at least, not to be tried in a US court. Plotting to kill Americans in America? I guess you could argue conspiracy, but that's always pretty hard to prove, otherwise it's a thought-crime.

    So what's the answer? Release everyone? What happened to the war? Try everyone on the basis of what are, in effect, pretty ethereal charges? Hold everyone for the duration? Take a best guess on the facts available at the time? I'm glad I'm not making that decision.

    NTM


  • Options
    #47
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,428 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    And I seem to recall something about the Geneva conventions supposedly applying to Gitmo, implying that it is
    I imagine its that they are (largely, with specific exceptions) applying the rules, not necessarily admitting the rules apply.


  • Options
    #48
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    If it's a POW camp (And I seem to recall something about the Geneva conventions supposedly applying to Gitmo, implying that it is), then the whole talk of trials is really just for public consciousness: How many prisoners captured in warfare and held in POW camps are tried for their acts?

    Its a fair question. Another fair question is whether or not the detainees in Gitmo have been treated the way detainees in a POW Camp should be treated.
    On the other hand, if it's a criminal detention facility, what's the crime?
    Another fair question.

    The problem, for me at least, is that Gitmo appears to be neither POW Camp nor criminal detention facility. It seems to be a bit of both, and a bit which is neither.


  • Options
    #49
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The problem, for me at least, is that Gitmo appears to be neither POW Camp nor criminal detention facility. It seems to be a bit of both, and a bit which is neither.

    I think the problem is that it's neither because it really cannot be either. Yet we still like to buttonhole the detainees (See, we don't even call them EPWs or Suspects) into either the military or the civilian category and fit them into the frame of reference we are familiar with when really, we need to come up with an entirely new way of thinking. Some form of investigation process is required to try to avoid holding innocents, but I really don't think a civilian criminal court is the best way of doing it.

    NTM


Advertisement