The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"Chris H" wrote in message
...

[...]

And Saddam was the US's man for the first 20 years for the 30.

And Al-qeada & Taliban were originally trained and funded by the USA
(to fight the legitimate government in Afghanestan)

It is impossible to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion with
you, Chris, because you insist on using it to push your own
propaganda line. (that everything the US has ever done was evil) Is

In this case Chris H simply stated undisputed historical facts. The US has
a long and murky history of supporting despots and suppressing democracies
when it thought it was in its national interests.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:55:18 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Walter Banks" wrote in message news:4AC4F93B.AA
...


Bill Graham wrote:

Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars
where armies
had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took
up
arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of
terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the
conventional
rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No
uniforms,
isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands
of
people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of
conduct
that are cut and dried.

Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but
200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History
before that brought
the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors.

w.
.
So we need new rules of acceptable conduct.
You got them in 2008

And my question is, are the UN rules, and the Geneva Convention rules,
applicable to fighting off these kinds of terrorist actions?
Yes... They were for the last 40 years in Norther Ireland.

And, if not, then what are we to do before new rules are established,
and who will establish them?

They have been well defined and used by many armies. It has just takne
the US military a LONG time to realise it's mistakes.

Personally, I don't see any way out right now,
Well the US has dug a bloody big hole for itself/

but for us to establish our own rules as we go.
Then you LOOSE and loose big time. The rules are already there the US
military has to adapt to them,


And this means attacking other rogue countries such as Iran and North
Korea as necessary to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons and
selling/giving them to terrorists. If there is some other way to
prevent this, I am all ears.....

The main rogue state as seen by most of the world is the USA.

You finally got "rogue" right. Now work on the difference between
"lose" and "loose". I thought the UK was supposed to have a decent
education system.

Their ability to teach history is also not without some problems......

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009100117185027722-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-01 14:07:42 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:200910011258549530-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but
the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the
illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during
his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies
eliminating him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of
legality/illegality. Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed
four million. At what point would you consider it mandatory that the
other heads of state in this world become justified in killing him?
Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef
Stalin? Should we just turn out backs on anything, and not ever kill
anybody, no matter what they do? And, in any case, how can you dismiss
the whole argument with a half dozen words?

IIRC we did not kill Hitler (unless you know something we haven't been
told.)
Tojo, we dropped through a floor with a safety rope around his neck, but
Hirohito got a pass, you might say Tojo took the fall for him.

...and Stalin was on our side. We accepted him as an ally with full
knowledge of his butchery.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

And what does any of the above have to do with the question of whether or
not we should take out a despotic head of state?

I was just commenting on your twisted take on history.

Yes. Well, in logic, you are very much like an American Chris H. It's very
difficult for me to carry on an intelligent discussion with anyone on this
forum without the two of you making meaningless comments that have nothing
to do with the subject at hand. I think I would be well advised to plonk
both of you in the same way I would swat a couple of mosquitoes.....

"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"Chris H" wrote in message
...

[...]

And Saddam was the US's man for the first 20 years for the 30.

And Al-qeada & Taliban were originally trained and funded by the USA
(to fight the legitimate government in Afghanestan)

It is impossible to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion with
you, Chris, because you insist on using it to push your own
propaganda line. (that everything the US has ever done was evil) Is

In this case Chris H simply stated undisputed historical facts. The US
has a long and murky history of supporting despots and suppressing
democracies when it thought it was in its national interests.


All of which, true or not, has nothing to do with what I was discussing. I
would like to find some common ground in deciding what to do about our
current dilemma. Regardless of where the fault lies in how we arrived here
to begin with. Apparently, you guys just want us to lie down and die because
of some perceived mistake you think we made in the past. Well, I doubt if
you are going to get your wish. So, why don't you address the current
situation, and work to find a solution, instead of finding someone to blame
for it?

I loaned my neighbor a gun. I thought he would use it to defend himself
against intruders. Instead, he went out and shot a dozen people. Now, I am
worried about what I should do about it. So, I asked Chris H what he thinks
I should do. Chris says, "You loaned him the gun to begin with." So, I say,
"Yes, yes.....but now, what should I do? and, Chris says, "If you hadn't
loaned him your gun to begin with, you wouldn't have the problem you have
now." And, I say, "Even if that's true, I still would like to find a way to
solve the present situation. Do you have any suggestions?" And Chris says,
"You Americans always do the wrong things". So this is the logic of Chris H.
It solves nothing, and is of no use or help at all.....

On 2009-10-02 00:08:38 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009100117185027722-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-01 14:07:42 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:200910011258549530-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but
the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the
illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during
his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies
eliminating him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of
legality/illegality. Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed
four million. At what point would you consider it mandatory that the
other heads of state in this world become justified in killing him?
Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef
Stalin? Should we just turn out backs on anything, and not ever kill
anybody, no matter what they do? And, in any case, how can you dismiss
the whole argument with a half dozen words?

IIRC we did not kill Hitler (unless you know something we haven't been told.)
Tojo, we dropped through a floor with a safety rope around his neck,
but Hirohito got a pass, you might say Tojo took the fall for him.

...and Stalin was on our side. We accepted him as an ally with full
knowledge of his butchery.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

And what does any of the above have to do with the question of whether
or not we should take out a despotic head of state?

I was just commenting on your twisted take on history.

Yes. Well, in logic, you are very much like an American Chris H. It's
very difficult for me to carry on an intelligent discussion with anyone
on this forum without the two of you making meaningless comments that
have nothing to do with the subject at hand. I think I would be well
advised to plonk both of you in the same way I would swat a couple of
mosquitoes.....

Bill just remember it is you, who has a somewhat distorted recollection
of history.
You also have a strange take on your responsibility regarding complying
with the Law, Federal, State and Municipal.
You make remarks with a questionable basis in fact, which when
challenged you either ignore, or claim the truth is unimportant and we
should just accept whatever figment of your imagination you spew.
I have no idea why you believe erroneous statements on your part should
go unchallenged, just because you believe yourself above challenge.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Bill Graham wrote:
I loaned my neighbor a gun. I thought he would use it to defend himself
against intruders. Instead, he went out and shot a dozen people. Now, I
am worried about what I should do about it. So, I asked Chris H what he
thinks I should do. Chris says, "You loaned him the gun to begin with."
So, I say, "Yes, yes.....but now, what should I do? and, Chris says, "If
you hadn't loaned him your gun to begin with, you wouldn't have the
problem you have now." And, I say, "Even if that's true, I still would
like to find a way to solve the present situation. Do you have any
suggestions?" And Chris says, "You Americans always do the wrong
things". So this is the logic of Chris H. It solves nothing, and is of
no use or help at all.....

But before you loaned that neighbour that gun, all your friends (and,
yes, they were real friends) from around the World told you that it was
dangerous and a bad idea to loan a gun to that neighbour, giving you
very good reasons not to.
You responded by calling them cowards, renaming food items and being
generally insulting and abnoxious.
It is little wonder that those friends are now thinking "I told you so"
and are totally convinced that it is *your* problem.

On 2009-10-02 00:29:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

I loaned my neighbor a gun. I thought he would use it to defend himself
against intruders. Instead, he went out and shot a dozen people. Now, I
am worried about what I should do about it. So, I asked Chris H what he
thinks I should do. Chris says, "You loaned him the gun to begin with."
So, I say, "Yes, yes.....but now, what should I do? and, Chris says,
"If you hadn't loaned him your gun to begin with, you wouldn't have the
problem you have now." And, I say, "Even if that's true, I still would
like to find a way to solve the present situation. Do you have any
suggestions?" And Chris says, "You Americans always do the wrong
things". So this is the logic of Chris H. It solves nothing, and is of
no use or help at all.....

Huh?
WTF are you trying to say? Are making some sort of online confession?
or is this another "Oregon Bill, all the World is against me" parable?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2009-10-02 00:01:25 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:55:18 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Walter Banks" wrote in message news:4AC4F93B.AA
...


Bill Graham wrote:

Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars
where armies
had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took up
arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of
terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the
conventional
rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No
uniforms,
isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands of
people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of
conduct
that are cut and dried.

Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but
200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History
before that brought
the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors.

w.
.
So we need new rules of acceptable conduct.
You got them in 2008

And my question is, are the UN rules, and the Geneva Convention rules,
applicable to fighting off these kinds of terrorist actions?
Yes... They were for the last 40 years in Norther Ireland.

And, if not, then what are we to do before new rules are established,
and who will establish them?

They have been well defined and used by many armies. It has just takne
the US military a LONG time to realise it's mistakes.

Personally, I don't see any way out right now,
Well the US has dug a bloody big hole for itself/

but for us to establish our own rules as we go.
Then you LOOSE and loose big time. The rules are already there the US
military has to adapt to them,


And this means attacking other rogue countries such as Iran and North
Korea as necessary to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons and
selling/giving them to terrorists. If there is some other way to
prevent this, I am all ears.....

The main rogue state as seen by most of the world is the USA.

You finally got "rogue" right. Now work on the difference between
"lose" and "loose". I thought the UK was supposed to have a decent
education system.

Their ability to teach history is also not without some problems......

How on Earth would you of all people recognise, know, or even care what
an educated knowlege of history is?
You have yet to provide evidence that you have anything more than a
vague grasp of what happened more than eight months ago.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"DRS" wrote in message news:QoOdnd_lNr4iAV
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"Chris H" wrote in message
...

[...]

And Saddam was the US's man for the first 20 years for the 30.

And Al-qeada & Taliban were originally trained and funded by the USA
(to fight the legitimate government in Afghanestan)

It is impossible to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion with
you, Chris, because you insist on using it to push your own
propaganda line. (that everything the US has ever done was evil) Is

In this case Chris H simply stated undisputed historical facts. The
US has a long and murky history of supporting despots and suppressing
democracies when it thought it was in its national interests.


All of which, true or not, has nothing to do with what I was
discussing. I would like to find some common ground in deciding what to
do about our current dilemma. Regardless of where the fault lies in how
we arrived here to begin with.

How we got to this point is VERY valid and also has a direct bearing on
how we can get out of it. We have to understand the dynamics of the
situation and it's history. That will give yo the motivations of the
players.

Apparently, you guys just want us to lie down and die because of some
perceived mistake you think we made in the past.

Not at all. Because of some very real mistakes made by the US (and the
US was told at the time they were mistakes) we have arrived at this
situation. This means not all options are open on the way to get out.

Well, I doubt if you are going to get your wish. So, why don't you
address the current situation, and work to find a solution, instead of
finding someone to blame for it?

I am addressing the current situation. Those who forget history are
doomed to repeat it.

The facts are NONE of this is old history. In Afghanistan 50 years is
the blink of an eye. SO the last 50 years is "current" many Afghans are
speaking of the Americans and Russians in the same sentence because to
the Afghans the Russians invading their country was "yesterday" and the
Americans "today". Many Afghans can see no difference between the
Americans and the Russians. (Other than the Americans have been killing
more civilians)

SO go get out of this mess the US has got itself into you need to look
at the last 100 years in general and the last 40 in particular. You
also need to understand it in the context of the region from Syria to
China. What the US does in Israel is an important factor as much as
bombing a wedding party in the next village.

The first thing the US has to wake up to is it is NOT seen as the Good
Guy by anyone.

The second is the Afghans were civilised at least a millennium before
the USA was created (as was Persia).

Third
What the US calls "freedom and democracy" is as alien to the Afghans as
Sharia law is to New York. New York wants Sharia law about as much as
the Afghans want a US style democracy.

Forth
The most important day to day thing is the US forces are an open battle
field 20th century army. They have no idea how to fight a Police action
in a civilian setting. They can not win using current tactics. Michael
Jackson was commenting on this recently

The US military needs a major rethink. They got new counter insurgency
manuals in 2008 (based on the British ones) but it is going to take some
years to turn the super tanker that is the US military. Probably the
better part of a decade. However estimates are it will take about 20
years to get out of Afghanistan.





--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/