Wednesday, May 31, 2006

"War?" What "war?"


Oh, man. How many times -- how many, O Lord??? -- have I blogged on the issue of whether we (and by "we," I mean other people) are really "at war?" Not surprisingly, it's convenient to answer that question differently on different days, isn't it?

Why, yes ... yes, it is.

BY THE WAY
, if the troops have just been told that we're not really "at war" and that the Geneva Conventions aren't in effect, would it still be morally justified for a member of the Taliban to kill PM Stephen Harper? Discuss.

POINTS TO PONDER: It's hard to believe that anyone in a position of responsibility could be so mentally retarded as to send Canadian troops into armed conflict, then publicly announce that the Geneva Conventions don't apply.

I'm guessing that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor doesn't quite grok that the Geneva Conventions are as much for Canadian troop protection as for the opposition, in order to guarantee that our soldiers are treated humanely when they're captured. And O'Connor has just made it clear to the world that they're not.

Bonus exam question: Would a member of Canada's military be morally justified in killing Defence Minister Donald O'Connor for being such a total asshole? Discuss. Show your work.

WELL, YOU KNEW THIS WAS COMING. Cathie wrote about this as well, and it was only a matter of time before the citizens of Lower Wankerville started chiming in on how the Geneva Conventions apply to us ('cuz we're the good guys) but don't apply to them (for whatever reason happens to be convenient).

For example, Cathie's commenter "Lance" makes an ass of himself by bloviating:

Respectfully . . . you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Go read it.

First article regarding Land forces - http://tinyurl.com/r3dv4
Third article regarding POW's - http://tinyurl.com/mkdvo

Particularily the part about what defines persons protected under the Geneva Convention. Silly little requirements like uniforms, and chains of command.

Oh, yeah. Can't have a war without proper uniforms, dontcha know? Except that's utter rubbish. So before anyone decides to leave a comment trying to educate the rest of us on what the GCs really mean, do us all a favour and go read them first.

I'd like to get your opinion on what they actually say, rather than what you heard Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly say about them. Is that asking too much?

9 comments:

Grog said...

Philosophically, as far as I'm concerned, anytime we send our troops into a war zone, the Geneva Conventions apply to their actions - period.

Sophistry about "uniforms" etc. is complete crap.

Phyl said...

Sometimes I think the wingnuts WANT our soldiers to be retaliated against because of stuff like this. That way, the wingies will be able to jump up and down and scream, "See? See?? How horrible they are?? WE HAVE TO ATTACK THEM MORE 'cause they're so damn evil!"

Anonymous said...

Kate was right. What a nasty hate site this is...but no one hates like the left.

What would Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor know about the Geneva Conventions? A site funded by a convicted criminal has the real truth about GC!

And linking to whacko Cathie? The one who links to Steve Gilliard, the same SG who is notorious for photoshopping pics of black conservatives to make them look like Sambos.

I can see how popular this site is by the number of comments your posts receive. Compare that to the number of comments Kate gets when she posts. Where are all the moonbats? Over at Cathie's?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

"As an aside - what is it about those who skulk about on the toxic fringes of the left (ahem RIGHT-)osphere that they are so loathe to reveal their identities?"-sda

If your true leader and demi-god of bloggers Kate finds out you've been posting anonymously, you might get kicked out of the cool kids club!

Kate's blog is an echo chamber. Maybe moonbats read something once and are happy with it, without having to read the same opinion 75 times a post with almost every post having the word "lieberal" or "librano" in it.

Get a grip.

Adam said...

Dear anonymous;

So did you come here from the SDA post whining about people afraid to use their real names?

The Geneva Conventions are not actually a secret, so you don't need to decide about whose version to trust. Read them yourself, and then decide whether O'Connor has a clue.

I did like the "links to someone who links to someone who links to someone..." part of your comment though. Very Pythonesque, which seems to be popular around here.

CC said...

anonymous belches:

"Kate was right. What a nasty hate site this is...but no one hates like the left."

Um ... let me understand this. A groupie of Kate McMillan's thinks that my blog is especially hateful?

Dude, you have got to stop helping Kate with work involving paint thinner. Seriously.

Glyn (Zaphod) Evans said...

"no one hates like the left"

Made me spit my coffee on my monitor... I haven't heard something as funny as that in ages...

Who is this half-wit?

Anonymous said...

"The one who links to Steve Gilliard, the same SG who is notorious for photoshopping pics of black conservatives to make them look like Sambos." --

http://tinyurl.com/8qp62

Heard Over Longwave CB Radio:
Squelch....
Left Pot To Conservative Kettle, Left Pot to Conservative Kettle... Squelch... You are black... over....

Anonymous said...

"Maybe moonbats read something once and are happy with it, without having to read the same opinion 75 times a post with almost every post having the word "lieberal" or "librano" in it."

In order for it to be a genuinely Right Whingery echo-chamber comment, you have to have dozens of $$$$$$ signs when you spell out LIBRANO$$$$$$$$....



Now smarten up: moonbat!