Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[Spectre]

Shall I mention the hundreds of years of Brit occupation prior to the Irish Revolution of 1916-1923, then? Or the use of the Riot Act? Or how the Brits treated the Irish during the Blight?

I need not even go near the Northern Ireland issue to come up with events and policies to use.

I may even be better informed on Northern Ireland than you think. Or I might not. Why don't you try me and find out?

Alternately, you could refrain from comment on Iraq and Afghanistan, and I won't bring up Ireland to beat you over the head with.

 

[DanRoM]

Lovely - everyone whose nation has been naughty in the past doesn't have the right to point out current wrongdoings? Nice attitude, really.

 

[Spectre]

The nice thing about using Ireland as an example is that depending on your point of view and or how you spin it.... It isn't the past we are talking about but ongoing events!

 

[nomix]

I think when our enemies start cutting off heads, then it goes to a new level. And its not a war for democracy.

And when they start cutting off heads, you need to make sure you are not being provoked into doing what they want you to do.

You wanna do what the Taliban or Al Quida wants you to do? You an ally of Al Quida?

If the United States wants to fight a war, they have to follow the rules of war.

I was thinking something like a prison where we can keep them until we prove they are innocent ,they're no longer a threat or ,if they are guilty, forever.

Problem is, even war criminals are innocent untill proven guilty. I do hope that those who advocate this "proven innocent" malarky one day will be under its boot themselves.

 

[DanRoM]

It isn't the past we are talking about but ongoing events!

You spoke of "prior to the Irish Revolution" and "during the Blight". These are very past events, so don't try and sneak out of it.

Anyway, even if you want to use current events: Justifying one's own wrongdoings by saying the others are just as bad is ridiculous. Especially for the US, who are supposed to be (and perceive themselves as) better, after all.

 

[jetsetter]

If the United States wants to fight a war, they have to follow the rules of war.

You actually believe that? There are no rules of war, not really. Some countries may follow some conventions but they only do when it is advantageous to them.

 

[Cobol74]

Shall I mention the hundreds of years of Brit occupation prior to the Irish Revolution of 1916-1923, then? Or the use of the Riot Act? Or how the Brits treated the Irish during the Blight?

I need not even go near the Northern Ireland issue to come up with events and policies to use.

I may even be better informed on Northern Ireland than you think. Or I might not. Why don't you try me and find out?

Alternately, you could refrain from comment on Iraq and Afghanistan, and I won't bring up Ireland to beat you over the head with.

And the majority of people who live there want what?

 

[nomix]

You actually believe that? There are no rules of war, not really. Some countries may follow some conventions but they only do when it is advantageous to them.

The funny thing is that one of the charges against some of the nazis after WW2 was for breaking with the geneva convention.

 

[jetsetter]

The funny thing is that one of the charges against some of the nazis after WW2 was for breaking with the geneva convention.

Yes, and they were the loosing side. Had the Geneva Conventions not been there the Allies still would have found something to charge the Nazis with. It is not as if the Allies were the paragon of lawful conduct during the war.

 

[nomix]

Another point was "starting a war of aggression". Weird stuff.

And yes, there were plenty of causes for charging allied leaders. Bombing of German cities, bombing of Japanese cities, and, of course, we're not even touching on the ruskies.

My point still stands, if you expect other nations to abide by the conventions, and by not so distant comments from the current administration, the US does expect other parties to do so (referring to the Taliban showing US soldiers on video, in clear violation of the convention), then the US must also abide by them.

Fact of the matter is, that the United States had to invent some gibberish term (enemy combattant) to swirl around the geneva convention.

That the Taliban isn't abiding by it does not mean that the US shouldn't abide by it, it is in fact a strong argument for abiding to it.

 

[jetsetter]

Fact of the matter is, that the United States had to invent some gibberish term (enemy combattant) to swirl around the geneva convention.

Not a gibberish term. The Taliban are using tactics that make them exempt.

 

[British_Rover]

Forgive me for not knowing how the process works for getting a nominee voted in to the Supreme Court, but how in the hell did Sotomayor get in when she pussy-footed around issues she was directly asked on? Abortion, immigration and a few others I can't remember (trying to look it up). I thought the point of the hearings was to find out their true colors for issues that they have faced and will have to face as a judge. She might be a good judge on the Supreme Court but the fact that she did pussy-foot around some issues confuses me.

Ever since the The Bork Nomination nominees have pussy footed around the questions. Bork probably could have gotten himself in but he shot himself in the head with the way he answered questions.

Ever since then nominees have tried to be as vague as possible and when pushed thrown off controversial questions by saying they may come up in the future.

Supreme court nominees didn't even go to the senate for hearings on a regular basis until after world war II.

 

[gaasc]

while i was retrieving my test results this happened (pics shamelessly taken from a local newspaper)

this is a ?peaceful? protest that was going on in in the middle of the city one boy lost his arm there who knows what more shit is going to happen now that communists and Chavez's butt-friends have or are about to penetrate the country

<reporter voice>
for finalgear forums gaasc, Tegucigalpa
</reporter voice >

 

[Spectre]

You spoke of "prior to the Irish Revolution" and "during the Blight". These are very past events, so don't try and sneak out of it.

Anyway, even if you want to use current events: Justifying one's own wrongdoings by saying the others are just as bad is ridiculous. Especially for the US, who are supposed to be (and perceive themselves as) better, after all.

Who's justifying? I'm just pointing out that those who are engaged in similarly 'reprehensible' conduct should not comment when others do the same thing.

 

[tigger]

And now for something completely different (maybe not, healthcare is sort of involved )

http://www.adambohannon.org/blog/united-states-land-big-business-small/

Just got me thinking about entrepreneurship here.

 

[nomix]

Not a gibberish term. The Taliban are using tactics that make them exempt.

Bullshit! They are no worse than the SS or the Japs, and the Japs did not get the full cadoodle of enemy combattant threatment. Next thing you're going to tell me there were a lot less german POWs to take care of...

Who's justifying? I'm just pointing out that those who are engaged in similarly 'reprehensible' conduct should not comment when others do the same thing.

I don't get what you're on about. I have never ever held enemy combattants in prison cages in prison camps, and I've never used torture against people.

 

[DanRoM]

Who's justifying? I'm just pointing out that those who are engaged in similarly 'reprehensible' conduct should not comment when others do the same thing.

Same thing, you just say it the other way around.

 

[Plissken]

The Taliban are using tactics that make them exempt.

Not really.

They ain't an army for a start. We invaded their country. They are more like the Resistance in WWII.

Now, you might say "Aha! That means we can treat them how we like!" Well, yes, as long as you accept that we invaded Afghanistan without so much as a by-your-leave.

So either it is a war, and the US must play by the rules of the Geneva Convention, or it isn't, in which case the US is the invading force like, to pluck a random example out of the air, Iraq invading Kuwait in 1991.

 

[Symbotic]

The war in Afghanistan is nothing like the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The Taliban are nothing like the resistance groups of WWII. It's kind of sad that you would compare people trying to save their country from being taken over to the Taliban who are trying to do the taking over.

 

[Plissken]

The war in Afghanistan is nothing like the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The Taliban are nothing like the resistance groups of WWII. It's kind of sad that you would compare people trying to save their country from being taken over to the Taliban who are trying to do the taking over.

Who formed the Afghanistan Government before the Western forces invaded?

I'll give you a clue. It begins with 'T' and it isn't a typical day in Britain.