07-05-2002 08:00									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: If you had no idea of the future at that time and all you knew was Hitler was just a hotheaded jerk who hadn't yet done anything wrong, the justification evaporates, doesn't it? Well, he did state that the killing is always unjustified. And after Mein Kampf and the Nazi party taking power... well, you know. And others that you could be sure of would amount to evil... OBL after the embassy bombings, for example.

So why aren't you out now looking for authors of right-wing propoganda to shoot?

	07-05-2002 08:00									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: But it would also be the only way to remove the state of international anarchy that he seems to abhor.

International anarchy has been much lessened since World War 2. It is very interesting. Now to finish it off.

	07-05-2002 08:01									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: So why aren't you out now looking for authors of right-wing propoganda to shoot?

If they could take power (as in the Presidency), I wouldn't blame anyone for killing them.

	07-05-2002 08:06									#64
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui International anarchy has been much lessened ... It is very interesting. Now to finish it off.

Which would be more easily accomplished with an army than a judicial body without any enforcement mechanism, would it not?

	07-05-2002 08:08									#65
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Which would be more easily accomplished with an army than a judicial body without any enforcement mechanism, would it not?

Both would be preferble.

	07-05-2002 08:12									#66
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

My gut feel is that we are better off without this. Ther have been a lot of internationalist treaties which were feel good exercises for the little nationas but which would seriously hamper us. (Law of the Sea, Kyoto, etc.) We don't have anything to be ashamed of in terms of all the haevy lifiting we've done compared to Eurocoms in last 50 years of Cold War. In terms of standing up for freedom. no way we should let a bunch law professors and second rate aparatchiks make us feel bad about not playing along with their little schemes...

	07-05-2002 08:15									#67
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: So why aren't you out now looking for authors of right-wing propoganda to shoot? If they could take power (as in the Presidency), I wouldn't blame anyone for killing them.

An appalling sentiment, IMO. I'm pretty darn liberal, but to justify the murder of someone based on their political views, no matter how repugnant, is a little frightening. That means you would have no problem with the guy shooting the Dutch politician today, right?

	07-05-2002 08:18									#68
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: That means you would have no problem with the guy shooting the Dutch politician today, right?

He doesn't qualify as a someone who would get into power (ie, polls show 15% would be high).

However, a future Hitler, that gained the Chancellory and made no uncertain terms that he would abolish democracy and make Jews 2nd class? Why not kill him?

If Fortuyn became PM, I wouldn't blame some Muslim immigrant for killing him. I really wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't blame a black person for killing a member of the Klan who became governor of a state today.

quote: Ther have been a lot of internationalist treaties which were feel good exercises for the little nationas but which would seriously hamper us. (Law of the Sea, Kyoto, etc.)

What's wrong with 'Law of the Sea'?

	07-05-2002 08:19									#69
	GP Tired of ads?

a) Why should the rest of the world believe that you'll adequately police your own soldiers?

b) If we don't believe that you will, why shouldn't we be pissed that you're too high an mighty to ever contemplate letting someone else do it for you?

c) Obviously there's no question of forcing the US to do anything it doesn't want to, but at some point annoying the rest of the world has negative impact on the US...

	07-05-2002 08:23									#70
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: That means you would have no problem with the guy shooting the Dutch politician today, right? He doesn't qualify as a someone who would get into power (ie, polls show 15% would be high). However, a future Hitler, that gained the Chancellory and made no uncertain terms that he would abolish democracy and make Jews 2nd class? Why not kill him? If Fortuyn became PM, I wouldn't blame some Muslim immigrant for killing him. I really wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't blame a black person for killing a member of the Klan who became governor of a state today.

What you're saying is that it is justifyable to kill someone because you disagree with their political views, not because they've actually done anything. How can you say that? What then makes it wrong for a right-winger to assassinate a leftist, since he disagrees with the idealogy?

Come on, you can't be serious in saying this stuff. That is absolutely anathema to the very notion of freedom of thought. You're saying it's ok to kill people for how they think.

	07-05-2002 08:24									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: What you're saying is that it is justifyable to kill someone because you disagree with their political views, not because they've actually done anything. How can you say that? What then makes it wrong for a right-winger to assassinate a leftist, since he disagrees with the idealogy?

It depends... to certain people it is justifiable to kill people who say they should be killed AND are in position of power. I said, I can sympathize.

	07-05-2002 08:25									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui What's wrong with 'Law of the Sea'?

He is from Texas. The state where a legitimate defense is 'He needed killing'. The Law of the Sea is the only efective international law there is.

	07-05-2002 08:28									#73
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Imran, killing someone for their thoughts is truly wrong - that is one thing I would define as unjustified killing.

You are assuming that they would do things like kill Jews - so much for presumption of innocence.

And where do you draw the line? Is it permissable to shoot someone for wanting to deport all foreign nationals, or only wanting to kill them?

	07-05-2002 08:28									#74
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It depends... to certain people it is justifiable to kill people who say they should be killed AND are in position of power. I said, I can sympathize.

And some people think it is justifiable to rape women who dress in skimpy outfits, so what? What does that person's sense of personal justice have going for it that trumps law?

And you said 1922 Hitler, remember. We're talking about a Hitler who had yet to do anything but write rotten things.

Oh, and Fortyun could have feasible been PM, if not this year, in the future. His party had just won the largest portion of the vote in Rotterdam, and they say his star was rising steadily. He certainly had more potential than Hitler could be seen to have in 1922.

	07-05-2002 08:30									#75
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I assume you wouldn't mind killing Reagan, then, by the way, based upon his "joke" that we'd be bombing the Soviets in "15 minutes", eh? Not only did he threaten to commit mass murder, but he also had the clear power to do it.

Yes, of course he would not really have done it - but how can you make the judgment that someone you don't like will?

	07-05-2002 08:32									#76
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Well, Reagan should have been shot on the grounds for making such a lame joke and being too dumb to know the camera was on...

hehehehe...

	07-05-2002 08:38									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

He did commit plenty of other moral wrongs, no question about it...Imran, any comment on a punishment?

	07-05-2002 08:41									#78
	Support Apolyton

For Iran-Contra, I can think of no better punishment than the one that has already been inflicted on him by nature.

	07-05-2002 08:43									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Then of course there is the matter of lying about it.

	07-05-2002 08:46									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Lies don't always worry me, especially coming from politicians. Par for the course. It was the blatant violation of the Constitution and the subversion of the will of Congress I find utterly disgusting. I think it set a dangerous precedent.

In my opinion, what Reagan did was far worthier of impeachment and removal than even that evil bastard Nixon was.

	07-05-2002 08:49									#81
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I don't see what this action accomplished, since we didn't respect the authority of the World Court when they ordered the US to pay $17*10^9 in reparations for the terror Reagan et al. committed against the Nicaraguas.

	07-05-2002 08:49									#82
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

What Reagan did was certainly impeachable...certainly worse than what Clinton did.

	07-05-2002 08:51									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: I don't see what this action accomplished, since we didn't respect the authority of the World Court when they ordered the US to pay $17*10^9 in reparations for the terror Reagan et al. committed against the Nicaraguas

While we certainly should have payed, and what we did was wrong, I disagree that the World Court should be able to infringe upon our national sovereignty.

	07-05-2002 08:56									#84
	Re: GP Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse a) Why should the rest of the world believe that you'll adequately police your own soldiers?

Can't be 100% sure of it, of course. But we've been a "force for freedom". If you want to live in "hypothetical land" you can worry about abuses from the US. If you really want to worry about the source of the problem, look elsewhere. I just sense this disconnect from Euro-weenies living in "hypothertical world" and those who actually have to spend time deploying to the nasty parts of the world and training to fight the next wars.

quote: b) If we don't believe that you will, why shouldn't we be pissed that you're too high an mighty to ever contemplate letting someone else do it for you?

Given your predicate (assumption) obvviously the latter follows. The question is if the assumption is valid. Ok. To be honest, I understand this issue. But also to be honest, I don't think it is all about legitimate concern about abuses either. I think there is some desire to "hamstring the Gulliver".

quote: c) Obviously there's no question of forcing the US to do anything it doesn't want to, but at some point annoying the rest of the world has negative impact on the US...

Sure. I don't think this is worth the other countries getting that upset about, though. It's more of a pride issue than a real concern.

	07-05-2002 08:58									#85
	Increase Your PM Length

I opppose this, as I do not think the United States shoud be working to strengthen international insitutions. Anyway you look at this, this puts more power in international hands and strengthens the criminal justice process. SCOTUS in lieu of Appeals tribunals for every dispute work well for our wanting of a strong enough judiciary to ensure the gov's adherence the Constitution, but the process of trying war crimes is not a process we neccesarily want to strengthen. It's actions might interfere with US goals and policy. International bodies have had suspect problems before- take for instance U.N. Human rights Comission, which has Zimbabwe but not the USA. This court would also draw judges from around the world- although systems differ among the world: A British judge would be trained in common law, a French judge would be trained in the inquisitorial system, a Chinese judge would be trained to strictly obey the party, and an Iranian judge would be trained in Islamic law. These different legal perspectives could pose problems. I think in most cases the USA should not promote organizations which might go against US interests and principles.

	07-05-2002 08:59									#86
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: And you said 1922 Hitler, remember. We're talking about a Hitler who had yet to do anything but write rotten things.

Yes, but we KNOW he was. I'd kill one man to save millions... anyday.

Also, I support those Eastern European countries that killed their Communist leaders, such as Romania. That was justified.

quote: I disagree that the World Court should be able to infringe upon our national sovereignty.

And what makes national sovereignty so untouchable? It hasn't been in the past.

	07-05-2002 08:59									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well DF, I think your ideas on national sovereignty are incoherent.

	07-05-2002 09:00									#88
	Got spare money?

quote: This court would also draw judges from around the world- although systems differ among the world: A British judge would be trained in common law, a French judge would be trained in the inquisitorial system, a Chinese judge would be trained to strictly obey the party, and an Iranian judge would be trained in Islamic law. These different legal perspectives could pose problems.

Very good point, hadn't thought of that.

	07-05-2002 09:02									#89
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: but the process of trying war crimes is not a process we neccesarily want to strengthen. It's actions might interfere with US goals and policy.

quote: This court would also draw judges from around the world- although systems differ among the world: A British judge would be trained in common law, a French judge would be trained in the inquisitorial system, a Chinese judge would be trained to strictly obey the party, and an Iranian judge would be trained in Islamic law.

They would all have to follow international law.

And US states all have different laws. Should we only have justices from a certain area for the SCOTUS?

quote: I think in most cases the USA should not promote organizations which might go against US interests and principles.

Further globalization isn't in our interests . It is much smarter to increase political globalization if we are promoting economic globalization.

--

Btw, NAME one instance where the ICC could be against American interests. I mean, a concrete example.

	07-05-2002 09:04									#90
	Yet another x-post Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ummm...

Issues on which the US has been indictable in the past:

Attacks on civilian structures in Iraq causing untold civilian deaths
Funding of terrorist groups in Nicaragua
Funding of the Khmer Rouge even after it proved its insane nature
Extrajudicial executions in Viet Nam
Funding of terrorist attacks in Cuba
etc.?

If hamstringing the Gulliver is accomplished by asking you to adhere to the usual rules of war, then Gulliver has some very serious problems with the way it operates.