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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |