 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
Dan:
"Roland is a skeptic on military action, especially American military action..."
Depended on what action. The support of the Taliban's enemies, yes - a ground invasion, no. For military and political reasons.
"I went on to do a more complete psychoanalysis of Roland but on second thought don't think it's fair to do it in this thread..."
Why not ? 
Chris:
"I would have to search long and hard for a larger mis-interpretaion of Bush then this."
LOL!
"The people of the USA elect officals, not cronies."
And through the primaries, there won dubya, son of Bush I, and Al, son of senator Gore. And your characterization of the Cheney policies are funnily naive, to put it mildly. You really want to say you are not trolling here ?
"Allied bombing in WWII was morally unethical, yet a key ingrediant to victory."
Bombing of civilian targets ? That was ineffective at best.
"Wasted effort, a fanatic won't listen."
You still refuse or are unable to read and comprehend.
"We show them their is a terrible price to pay for their behavior"
Chris to suicide bomber: "We'll kill you. That'll show you! You still wanna attack us?"
"and that ultimatly, they will be defeated and their cause will end in failure."
That is about as clear as the outcome of the football match French national team vs the one-legged veterans of the war of 1871 with one leg tied up behind their back. As I say, you lack faith.
"Your speaking of insurgency..."
I'm taking about terrorism. Take ETA, RAF, IRA, GIA...
"Go right ahead, as if i had something to fear from that."
Good. When this stuff is available again, show me support for this:
"Why don't you tell us how this war has no chance of being won again?"
That would be a matter of fun rather than fear.
"You know perfectly weel USA action was both correct and justified."
Yes. And I just said so. Again. For you to understand: YES! Are you with me ? YES! Y-E-S.
"The circus has already begun, the Walker family is claiming that their son was denied a lawyer, and wouldn't hurt a fly."
What do you expect from the defendant's side? "I'm guilty of crimes against the People's Republic of X and the Party ?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
"Why not ?"
Because you're in a vulnerable situation.
OK, if you insist, it mainly has to do with your perception of the American people, their politics and their institutions. You don't have a good tactile feel for any of these things. There's really no reason why you should have a good tactile feel--you aren't steeped in these things, after all! But some of your opinions sound odd when you try to pull an "expert" tone based on these perceptions.
Consider your recent fondness for the term "crony capitalism". Now, I think this is a downright silly notion to attach to the US. True, there is even some corruption, especially at the local level. And the relationship is close at all levels. But the primary aspect of the crony capitalism term is a sort of persistent built-in preference for one person or group's capital over another's--this preference sustained through politics. On the whole, this preference doesn't exist. If you think politicians are going to protect your capital unduly (from the courts, from competitors, from the market, from yourself), you've got another thing coming!
This lack of tactile feel shows up in your opinions about Bush as well. To date, his foreign policy has been first rate. His domestic priorities are fairly middle-of-the-road and have been adopted. Not bad for one year in office coming off a constitutional crisis and a congress that is split nearly down the middle. Bush has proven to be an excellent deal-maker, the highest praise to which any American president should aspire (we're making sausage, not mona lisas!).
Anyway, this extends to other areas, which sometimes has Americans shaking our heads. Go to the GDP thread, ask about it, and I'll tell you more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
LOL! |
Isn't that interesting, that was my reaction to your comment also...
quote:
And through the primaries, there won dubya, son of Bush I, and Al, son of senator Gore. And your characterization of the Cheney policies are funnily naive, to put it mildly. You really want to say you are not trolling here ? |
You have a profound misunderstanding of US politics.
The canidate that is most likely to be voted in is usually backed by the party, not someone's son.
Bush's only likely adversary was John McCain for the republican nomination, and he is viewed as far to radical by many Republicans.
The Democrats backed the Vice-president, a common event is US politics when a two term president leaves (see Bush I).
It had ZERO to do with who's son they where. 
quote:
Bombing of civilian targets ? That was ineffective at best. |
Hah!
It ate the Reich's resources, destroyed it's fuel supplies, destroyed it's air force, and ended japan's war making potential as well.
Hardly "ineffective".
quote:
You still refuse or are unable to read and comprehend. |
quote:
Chris to suicide bomber: "We'll kill you. That'll show you! You still wanna attack us?" |
In case you haven't been paying attention (As your comment would indicate) 99% of them AERN'T suicide bombers.
You really must keep up with current events dear boy.
quote:
That is about as clear as the outcome of the football match French national team vs the one-legged veterans of the war of 1871 with one leg tied up behind their back. As I say, you lack faith. |
I don't need to convince my side, we know we will win, as you do.
THEY have to be convinced.
quote:
I'm taking about terrorism. Take ETA, RAF, IRA, GIA... |
The IRA thing has been pointed out, but most terrorism is totally ineffective, and usually produces the exact opposite of what is intended, mainly it hardens the resolve of those attacked, not weakens.
quote:
Yes. And I just said so. Again. For you to understand: YES! Are you with me ? YES! Y-E-S. |
Excellent.
Glad to see your with the program.
quote:
What do you expect from the defendant's side? "I'm guilty of crimes against the People's Republic of X and the Party ?" |
I expected nothing less, I always hope that people wouild take responcibility for their actions, but that is extremly unlikely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
Back on topic for a change...
"Since the stockade at Guantanamo has such a small capacity to house prisoners and there wasn't enough time to build a new facility, these "detainees' are being held in animal cages that the US Army bought from the Cuban government. They're second hand circus cages that used to belong to the Cuban State Circus. They're completely out doors, completely exposed to the elements. Rumsfeld said that this was "much better than where we had found them." In other words, they're "Clueless in Guantanamo," pumped up with Thorazine and given high protein, high fiber food wafer rice cakes.
The Red Cross had complained about the situation -- using circus cages for Afghan prisoners of war. Also they're not allowing access to any independent body to see the situation first hand.
Retired General Bernard Trainor, the chief military analyst for Fox News, talked about the "detainees," who were shown lined up between two barbed wire fences, kneeling with their heads toward the ground. He pointed out that we are forcing these people to spend twelve hours a day on their knees. It's done to punish and to control them. O'Reilly then asked Trainor if this wasn't considered cruel and unusual punishment, and Trainor actually said on the air, "These are just towel heads. This isn't punishment for them. They're used to spending a lot of their time on their knees in prayer." He actually used the word "towel head" and referred to these people as if they were sub-human. And I thought to myself after he said that - and we wonder why they hate us so much?"
http://www.almartinraw.com/column47.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
In the discussion of whether Al Queda (as opposed to Taliban) prisoners should be considered POWs, there has been little mention of Taliban control over the Al Queda forces. This requirement appears both in the case of "militias or volunteer corps forming part" of the armed forces of a party to a conflict
(Geneva III, art. 4(A)(1)), and in the case of "other militias and members of other volunteer corps" who fulfill the four criteria in Geneva III, art. 4(A)(2) (carrying arms openly, etc.). The "forming part" language in Article 4(A)(1) makes a control requirement obvious. Similarly, Article 4(A)(2) covers other militias or corps "belonging to a Party to the conflict."
In both cases, some degree of Taliban control over Al Queda forces would be required in order for the Al Queda detainees to qualify as POWS. Note that in the case of 4(A)(2), control is required IN ADDITION to meeting the four indicia of military structure.
The crucial legal question, therefore, is what degree of Taliban control was required? My sense is that under 4(A)(1), this is rather straight-forward factual question: did Al Queda fighters "form part of" the Taliban military in the sense that they functioned and were treated like any other Taliban troops.
The existence of a separate command structure, for example, would appear to disqualify Al Queda from this status.
As for 4(A)(2), the degree of necessary control was addressed directly by the Appeals Chamber of the Yugoslav Tribunal in the Tadic case (paras. 88-145). The overall question facing the court was whether the conflict in Bosnia was internal or international. It would be considered international if the FRY had incurred state responsibility for the acts of Bosnian Serb forces. This, in turn, depended on the degree of control required of the Yugoslavs. In answering this question, the court focussed on the "belonging to a Party to the conflict" language in Article 4(A)(2), which it found to embody a test of control.
The court first declined to follow the test used by the ICJ in the Nicaragua case (which was much stricter and would pose great difficulties for any Al Queda detainee). Instead, it held that "In order to attribute the acts of a military or paramilitary group to a State, it must be proved that the State wields overall control over the group." (para. 131). The court's elaboration of this test is worth quoting at length:
"control by a State over subordinate armed forces or militias or paramilitary units may be of an overall character (and must comprise more than the mere provision of financial assistance or military equipment or training). This requirement, however, does not go so far as to include the issuing of specific orders by the State, or its direction of each individual operation. Under
international law it is by no means necessary that the controlling authorities should plan all the operations of the units dependent on them, choose their targets, or give specific instructions concerning the conduct of military operations and any alleged violations of international humanitarian law. The control required by international law may be deemed to exist when a State (or, in the context of an armed conflict, the Party to the conflict) has a role in organising, coordinating or planning the military actions of the military group, in addition to financing, training and equipping or providing operational support to that group.
Acts performed by the group or members thereof may be regarded as acts of de facto State organs regardless of any specific instruction by the controlling State concerning the commission of each of those acts." (para. 137).
Whether or not Al Queda considered themselves comrades of the Taliban in a common struggle, or indeed any subjective views of Al Queda personnel about their relationship to the Taliban, would appear irrelevant to this test. The test is an objective one and focusses on the acts of the state authorities vis-a-vis militias, not the other way around.
Given the scarcity of facts about the relationship between Al Queda and the Taliban, it is difficult to assess how this test would be applied here. Reports in the media seem to suggest that while a close working relationship did exist, Al Queda was independent in many ways. For example, given bin Laden's independent wealth and the group's other sources of funding, it is unclear whether the Taliban had any role in "financing, training and equipping or providing operational support to" Al Queda.
On the other hand, this paucity of facts would appear to heighten the "doubt" referred to in Article 5 of Geneva III as to whether Al Queda detainees fit within Article 4(A)(2). The case for such doubt being resolved by a "competent tribunal," and not US political or military leaders, thus appears quite strong.
It's making the rounds on a newsgroup that I'm signed up for and the topic was interesting and wanted to know your thoughts on the matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
|
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
Well Chris, we are getting some form of agreement here....
"The canidate that is most likely to be voted in is usually backed by the party, not someone's son.... It had ZERO to do with who's son they where."
So their position (and this is about a political career in its entirety) is unrelated to their name ? I don't think so. The name is not enough, sure, and dubya is a particularly manageable politician, sure... but what would have become of George Bush II, son of used car salesman Bush I ?
"It ate the Reich's resources, destroyed it's fuel supplies, destroyed it's air force"
Drain on resources - definately, but the same would have been achieved with a focus on military/industrial targets.
Fuel supplies - not a civilian target.
Destroyed its air force - not a civilian target, and to engage it, attacks on military/industrial targets would have done.
The attacks on cities only strengthened the regime and defiance. What was gained by the firestorms in Hamburg, Dresden, etc...
"In case you haven't been paying attention (As your comment would indicate) 99% of them AERN'T suicide bombers."
And the 1 % that is constututes what is really dangerous. And nothing will deter them. You can weaken them by taking away their support, but that is much more a matter of solid police work (or taking out staging grounds like Afghansitan) than of deterrence.
"I don't need to convince my side, we know we will win, as you do. THEY have to be convinced."
Good. Then don't make this into a monumental struggle between good and evil, that gives them the impression they have a fighting chance.
"...most terrorism is totally ineffective, and usually produces the exact opposite of what is intended, mainly it hardens the resolve of those attacked, not weakens."
Of course it barely works. But that tells us little about the way to fight it.
"I expected nothing less, I always hope that people wouild take responcibility for their actions, but that is extremly unlikely."
Especially in that case, with the poor-boy-only-wanted-to-find-his-way-no-responsibility-victim-of-society parents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
Earlier in this thread, people said the US has the moral authority to try these people. Just like they had the right to try the nazi's according to US moral code during WW2, even though under german law they did nothing wrong. So in essence what is being said here is that the winning country has a right to try those of the loosing country by its moral code. So if germany won the war, it would have the right to execute US leaders for not executing and rounding up jews.
Now to modern times why doesn't the us government execute all muslems. They believe when they die they get to rape 70 some vergins, that infidels have no rights etc etc. If one looks at history you will notice islam has always been spread through the philosphy of convert or die, bin laddin is just the modern incarnation of this philosphy.
As for those prisoners in cuba what are they going to do with them? They all use one name, they lived like rats in a war ravaged country and its highly unlikely any of them had anything to do with the world trade center. What kind of case can they build against them, they don't even know some of thier names let alone where they where and have been or doing the last 4 -5 years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Viper2263
|
|
of Germania
Jan 2002
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
So the 10 commandments only apply when self-defense is not an issue? If your going to ignore aspects of Christian faith when it suits you, well, see your quote... |
Defense is the issue. Every U.S. action is in self defense, do not fire until fired upon! Sometimes we prevoke, but we never shoot to kill first (wound yes, kill no). One must survive. I will defend myself, killing my enemy, if need be, without remorse and know in my heart i did nothing wrong in order to defend my family, my faith, my country and my God! The Ten Commandments apply to EVERY situation, but even God says there will be war and that killing in defense is different than murder. This is why capital punishment is wrong, but justified warfare against an evil power is, while not right, also not a sin.
In a war such as this one...the issues cannot be solved by negotiation. They, the enemy, give us two options. Kill or be killed. Offense can be a defensive action too for it is preventative. For instance if we had not dropped the bombs in WWII on Japan, many more would have lost their lives inorder to gain peace on Earth. The best senarios and predictions say upward of 12-15 million; the 500 thousand killed is small potatoes to that number.
You're looking at negotiating in the nature that the U.S. and Britain have enjoied for almost two centuries. Some cultures do not have the value on human life that Western culture does. And as I'm sure you probably feel sometimes in your relationships at home and with friends that some people are hard headed. Same goes for nations, some are thick in the head and only listen when they're on the business end of a rifle. And in some situations it must be an absolute surrender, you can't get that from negotiating. How could we negotiate with terrorists? Ask them respectfully not to kill our citizens? What do we do then next week when they kill another thousand? What do we say then? The nature of the war we're fighting is that we don't want 9-11 to happen again to anyone!
Last edited by Viper2263 on 30-01-2002 at 20:32
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-01-2002 16:37
|