A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 1st 09, 08:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,748
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 18:47:20 +0100, Chris H wrote:


And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.


Our face must be red.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #22  
Old October 1st 09, 08:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Bill Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,294
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!


"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message

This is a slippery slope, what separates a leader who killed a million
from one who killed 900,000. Is 100,000 enough? What about
3,000?

Using this measure to justify invading and deposing a leader can
have un-intended consequenses.


This is true, but what other measure is there? Were we justified in
supporting England in her war against Hitler? And, if not, then at what
point should we have done so in order to protect ourselves?


Looking at the very narrow case of attacking a country to dispose
a leader and apply the same rules to attacks on the US. I am not
justifying either one just thinking through the logic of your statement.

w..


Of course you are right. There is a good case that we shouldn't have
attacked Iraq. but it is not cut and dried. There is also a good case for
doing so. I am very tired of those who say there is no such case. After all,
he did kill a lot of people, and we did get rid of him. But the larger
question is, at what point in the light of many corrupt world leaders is
such an action justified? How many innocent people should die before we or
someone else, steps in and does something about it? And not just for the
innocents who are dying, but for our own protection in the future. If Iran,
(for example) gets nuclear weapons, will they drop them on Israel? they
certainly imply they would, judging from their own rhetoric. Where have I
read that sort of thing before (Mein Kampf)? If I am well armed, and I see a
neighbor being attacked, should I go to his aid? There are city ordinances
that say that I should. Do we have a moral responsibility to stop the
certain slaughter of millions of innocent people? I personally believe we
do, in spite of the fact that right now, we only seem to do this sort of
thing if the countries involved have lots of oil. This is not my fault. I
would get rid of Ahmedinijad's reactor whether he has any oil or not.

  #23  
Old October 1st 09, 08:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Savageduck[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

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

  #24  
Old October 1st 09, 10:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Jürgen Exner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,579
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

"Bill Graham" wrote:
If my interpretation differs
from that of the Supreme Court, then I am going to have to break the "law of
the land". Sorry about that.....


I was suspecting from the very beginning that Mr. Graham was an
anarchist.

jue
  #25  
Old October 1st 09, 10:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Bill Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,294
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!


"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote:
If my interpretation differs
from that of the Supreme Court, then I am going to have to break the "law
of
the land". Sorry about that.....


I was suspecting from the very beginning that Mr. Graham was an
anarchist.

jue


"You were suspecting"? I thought I had made it plain from the beginning that
I was an anarchist. I believe that it is the responsibility, and not the
right, of good men to disobey bad laws.

  #26  
Old October 1st 09, 10:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Bill Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,294
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!


"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?

  #27  
Old October 1st 09, 10:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Chris H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,283
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"DRS" wrote in message news:UNidnVWBibNWcl
...
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.


The first 20 years he was aided and supported by the USA.


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



  #28  
Old October 1st 09, 10:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
mikey4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!


"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

"DRS" wrote in message news:gaSdndFLGuUoe1
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message


[...]

The Geneva Convention does not, as far as I know, offer any protection
whatever to combatants who are not part of any recognized military
force. If you think it does, show me where.

Combatants captured not in proper uniform are not POWs and have no
rights at all -- they can be and have been just executed on the spot.
That's been the rule for at least a few hundred years.

Every person has rights. Many of the detainees at Guananemo have
been shown to have not been involved in terrorist activities and were
captured by mistake. That is why civilised countries insist on the
rule of law, where no person may be detained without due process,
something the Bush administration fought every step of the way. It
is not acceptable to merely deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by
fiat. It must be established by evidence.


In wartime, anyone who is a citizen of the other side that is caught
out of uniform in your territory is a spy, and can be shot
unceremoniously.


No... Where did you get that stupid idea?
Most countries have the death penalty for treason .
A spy is tried as a CIVILIAN and when found guilty by due process is
sentenced.

It used to be shooting or hanging. These days in Europe and other
civilised parts of the world we don't have the death penalty. We leave
that to the axis of evil such as Iran, N.Korea, Israel, China and the
USA (the USA executing more than any of the others)


Actuall you are worn about the US, what else is new, from guardian.co.uk
There were a total of 2,390 executions worldwide in 2008, of which 1,718 or
72% took place in China.
And you forgot to mention, and Japan, the other Asian countries to enforce
the death penalty last year were Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Japan,
Malaysia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Singapore and Vietnam




  #29  
Old October 1st 09, 10:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Chris H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,283
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

In message 200910011258549530-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

"DRS" wrote in message news:UNidnVWBib
...
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.


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)


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



  #30  
Old October 1st 09, 10:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Chris H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,283
Default The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Walter Banks" wrote in message news:4AC4F2A3.9E
...


Bill Graham wrote:

In wartime, anyone who is a citizen of the other side that is caught
out of
uniform in your territory is a spy, and can be shot unceremoniously.


What about citizens of the other side in their own territory. Many in
GitMo were arrested in Afghanistan and Iraq

So, the
argument comes down to things like: Are we really in "wartime"? Who is a
citizen of, "The other side"? - Is there an, "other side"? What is
the other
sides, "Uniform"? IOW, things are a lot more complicated that they
at first
seem. And there certainly is lots of room for argument over what is
acceptable and what is not.


Some good points Bill..

Few seem to be arguing the arrest, most are arguing due process what
ever that may be. Treatment of detained persons is a real issue with
many different consequences. One of the few politicians in the US that
has thought this through is McCain.

w..


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.


Quite so. The US military men, machinery and mindset are all a 20th
century open battle field system. Useless for modern asymetiric warfare.

In a terrorist action, or series of terrorist actions such as we are
now experiencing, few of the conventional rules apply.


Not at all. ALL the conventional asymmetric warfare rules apply. It is
just that the US military can't handle it. In 2008 the US military
completely revised their counter insurgency manuals... they based them
on the British Army manuals (from the 1950's)

In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No uniforms, isolated
bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands of
people......


Nope that is not "civil war" in the US and UK civil wars both sides were
uniformed and organised. This is not civil warfare but insurgency and
terrorist "warfare". In this sort of warfare there is a government in
charge. The "enemy" are civilian criminals NOT soldiers. THAT is the
difference. Ask the British Army... they had 40 years of it in Northern
Ireland.

And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of conduct that are
cut and dried.


NOT at all there are VERY well established rules of conduct. The Brits
have honed them well over the last 60 years. The US military has at long
last changed their manuals BUT it is going to take at least a decade to
get the US military up to speed with it. IT requires a whole new mindset
for them and a new way of working.

However this was fully discussed in 2001 in UK.current-events.terrorisum
Where it was pointed out that whilst the US military had one of the most
powerful open battle field armies (see the advance to bagdhad) it was no
use what so ever at asymmetric warfare and Police actions.

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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! Chris H 35mm Photo Equipment 0 October 1st 09 08:24 AM
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! Bill Graham 35mm Photo Equipment 0 September 17th 09 11:21 PM
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! Bill Graham 35mm Photo Equipment 0 September 17th 09 11:14 PM
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! Bill Graham 35mm Photo Equipment 0 September 17th 09 11:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.