BTS wrote: I know you don't like facts in black and white put right in your face koan.
Now there's an incorrect statement. Don't blame me for your inability to summarize. BTW BTS a lot of forum members dislike seeing entire articles posted in responses. You see the point, I do not. I like it when statements are made instead of info posted with the meaning left for interpretation. You think it is a valid justification for war so do some others. There are also people who disagree. The UN for example. If they agreed they would have supported the war. They did not...and they know what they previously voted on more than any of us.
What's Up Canada???
What's Up Canada???
Scrat wrote: There are instances of US corporate sponsored mercenaries destroying entire villages in South America. No man, woman or babe was spared. There is also evidence of US military doing the same thing.
The beheadings that the insurgents carry out are acceptable in their rule book, in their style of warfare. In a war such as we are in Abbey there are no holes barred.
We can simply shove things under the carpet and deny what we do just don't cry about the mess we have made.
War is a dirty affair.So the beheadings are acceptable in their book? But if we are thought to have mishandled the book they use as an excuse to hate us, we are wrong..........
Maybe we need a NEW RULE book?
"NO HOLDS BARRED"
The beheadings that the insurgents carry out are acceptable in their rule book, in their style of warfare. In a war such as we are in Abbey there are no holes barred.
We can simply shove things under the carpet and deny what we do just don't cry about the mess we have made.
War is a dirty affair.So the beheadings are acceptable in their book? But if we are thought to have mishandled the book they use as an excuse to hate us, we are wrong..........
Maybe we need a NEW RULE book?
"NO HOLDS BARRED"
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
What's Up Canada???
koan wrote: Don't blame me for your inability to summarize. BTW BTS a lot of forum members dislike seeing entire articles posted in responses. You see the point, I do not. I like it when statements are made instead of info posted with the meaning left for interpretation.
To each his own "Madam Judge"
I will do it my way you do it yours........
If you can show me where I am not allowed (by FG) to post an important document for all to see then show me.
BTW, It was not a article. It was a resolution.
To each his own "Madam Judge"
I will do it my way you do it yours........
If you can show me where I am not allowed (by FG) to post an important document for all to see then show me.
BTW, It was not a article. It was a resolution.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
What's Up Canada???
BTS wrote: To each his own "Madam Judge"
I will do it my way you do it yours........
If you can show me where I am not allowed (by FG) to post an important document for all to see then show me.
BTW, It was not a article. It was a resolution.And it had absolutely nothing to do with any definition of a just war, which was the original question. If you don't know what these things mean, BTS, you just show yourself up.
I will do it my way you do it yours........
If you can show me where I am not allowed (by FG) to post an important document for all to see then show me.
BTW, It was not a article. It was a resolution.And it had absolutely nothing to do with any definition of a just war, which was the original question. If you don't know what these things mean, BTS, you just show yourself up.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
What's Up Canada???
gmc wrote: posted by Lon
terrorists or political activists? Like noraid for instance and their support for everybody's favourite terrorist those cuddly people the IRA.Aye, but gmc, there is a large British Loyalist camp based in this country.Ask the good Dr Ian Paisley
terrorists or political activists? Like noraid for instance and their support for everybody's favourite terrorist those cuddly people the IRA.Aye, but gmc, there is a large British Loyalist camp based in this country.Ask the good Dr Ian Paisley
What's Up Canada???
spot wrote: And it had absolutely nothing to do with any definition of a just war, which was the original question. If you don't know what these things mean, BTS, you just show yourself up.I disagree spot.
What part of the resolution are you refering too not justifing the war?
This part?
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"
"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,"
Or this part?
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"
"Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,"
I can go on and on. Show me where we were not justified by UN law to enforce the resolution(s)
What part of the resolution are you refering too not justifing the war?
This part?
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"
"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,"
Or this part?
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"
"Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,"
I can go on and on. Show me where we were not justified by UN law to enforce the resolution(s)
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
What's Up Canada???
Adam Zapple wrote: I don't know that you are right. How about some factual statistics rather than what you suppose.This is a deeply foolish question you put to me, Adam. Even if it were a sensible question where the answer wasn't so blatantly obvious, I'm still tired of lazy timewasters with their formulaic "you say that, you gotta prove it, K?" Why is it that every wanabee apologist for Global Restructuring Inc. keeps bleating this mantra instead of producing interesting and relevant source material to surprise me with? I wouldn't mind, if the detail asked for was actually wanted instead of subsequently ignored as though I'd not gone and found it. Tommy Franks doesn't do it, you know. Tommy Franks sits back and refuses information to all and sundry, on the basis presumably that helping the prosecution case is unconstitutional. Tommy Franks takes the Fifth, every time. "We decided early on that if we were to take each of the speculations that comes out and spend our time trying to describe the error of each speculation, we'd have little time to do anything else. And so all of us have opted to not do that."
So, terrorists kill more civilians than air forces, is that it? Seriously? You really want me to go there?
Terrorism is an utter pinprick on the world, and the world's rather more robust than a balloon. Terrorism is a policing problem. Terrorism becomes significantly detrimental to the health of nations when nations use it as an excuse to go galivanting around the globe slaughtering people on a commercial scale while calling their actions retribution.
Since 1968 there have been 29,347 deaths from terrorist activity on the planet. That's 800 people a year. Bad form, not to be approved of, but a policing matter. We do not go to war over the actions of a few fanatics. If it's state-sponsored terrorism, we apply sanctions to the state concerned, we damage that state economically. What we don't do is send our air force and - what was your mealy-mouthed excuse? - "unavoidably" kill civilians.
That's the other half of your question. Using your ghastly emotive babes-in-the-air phrase, you want me to show that "you can take any decade you like since air forces became popular, and there's more sweet and innocent children torn limb from limb into bloody corpses by air strikes than by every terrorist on the planet put together". Well, we have the first count, let's build a second.
I'm ignoring most civilian deaths in most wars over the period, because you particularly want just civilian deaths through air strikes. The raw figure, ignoring the air strike qualification, is simple and huge. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man most individually responsible for arming the Afghan mujaheddin in general and Osama bin Laden in particular, gave a reasonable estimate in "Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century" (1993) of 20th century Civilian war dead as 54 million.
We could start with the 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan.
Human Rights Watch concludes on the basis of evidence available on ninety incidents that as few as 488 and as many as 527 Yugoslav civilians were killed as a result of NATO bombing.
Regarding Iraq, during what we might call the Second Coming, a U.S. Air Force post-war study cited an “excessively high dud rate†due to the high altitude from which cluster bombs were dropped and the sand and water on which they landed. Even using a conservative 5 percent dud rate, more than one million unexploded submunitions were left behind by cluster bombs, and a similar number by ground cluster systems. By February 2003, these had killed 1,600 civilians... "The bomblets particularly endangered children; 60 percent of the victims were under the age of fifteen."
The long-term devastation that cluster munitions can cause is most evident in Southeast Asia, as Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam still struggle to cope with the threat posed by cluster munitions dropped by the United States from 1964 to 1973. The International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that in Laos alone, nine to twenty-seven million unexploded submunitions remain, and some 11,000 people have been killed or injured, of which more than 30 percent have been children.
Most of the civilian deaths, estimated at low at 500, high at 2000 - 3000, in the US invasion of Panama in 1989 civilian deaths were from air strikes.
I don't need to do all this, though. Just a single figure from Vietnam, guaranteed exclusively air strikes, puts me twice as far as I need to get to make my point. North Vietnamese civilians: 65,000 (Kutler, Lewy, Olson, Summers, Wallechinsky) by American bombing. Just as an aside, I found one paragraph that had never crossed my mind before, looking at air-scattered cluster bombs: "Scatterables were first introduced by the United States during the Vietnam War. However, they had severe consequences for U.S. troops, who often found themselves retreating through their own, unmarked minefields. Nearly one-third of all U.S. casualties during the war were due to landmines deployed by U.S. troops themselves".
Now, if I recall correctly, Adam, you were going to tell us what a just war is? BTS totally misunderstood the question, which was scarcely the surprise of the year, perhaps you'd like to offer your version. As a hint, you might like to copy and expand on a few words from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war.
So, terrorists kill more civilians than air forces, is that it? Seriously? You really want me to go there?
Terrorism is an utter pinprick on the world, and the world's rather more robust than a balloon. Terrorism is a policing problem. Terrorism becomes significantly detrimental to the health of nations when nations use it as an excuse to go galivanting around the globe slaughtering people on a commercial scale while calling their actions retribution.
Since 1968 there have been 29,347 deaths from terrorist activity on the planet. That's 800 people a year. Bad form, not to be approved of, but a policing matter. We do not go to war over the actions of a few fanatics. If it's state-sponsored terrorism, we apply sanctions to the state concerned, we damage that state economically. What we don't do is send our air force and - what was your mealy-mouthed excuse? - "unavoidably" kill civilians.
That's the other half of your question. Using your ghastly emotive babes-in-the-air phrase, you want me to show that "you can take any decade you like since air forces became popular, and there's more sweet and innocent children torn limb from limb into bloody corpses by air strikes than by every terrorist on the planet put together". Well, we have the first count, let's build a second.
I'm ignoring most civilian deaths in most wars over the period, because you particularly want just civilian deaths through air strikes. The raw figure, ignoring the air strike qualification, is simple and huge. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man most individually responsible for arming the Afghan mujaheddin in general and Osama bin Laden in particular, gave a reasonable estimate in "Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century" (1993) of 20th century Civilian war dead as 54 million.
We could start with the 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan.
Human Rights Watch concludes on the basis of evidence available on ninety incidents that as few as 488 and as many as 527 Yugoslav civilians were killed as a result of NATO bombing.
Regarding Iraq, during what we might call the Second Coming, a U.S. Air Force post-war study cited an “excessively high dud rate†due to the high altitude from which cluster bombs were dropped and the sand and water on which they landed. Even using a conservative 5 percent dud rate, more than one million unexploded submunitions were left behind by cluster bombs, and a similar number by ground cluster systems. By February 2003, these had killed 1,600 civilians... "The bomblets particularly endangered children; 60 percent of the victims were under the age of fifteen."
The long-term devastation that cluster munitions can cause is most evident in Southeast Asia, as Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam still struggle to cope with the threat posed by cluster munitions dropped by the United States from 1964 to 1973. The International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that in Laos alone, nine to twenty-seven million unexploded submunitions remain, and some 11,000 people have been killed or injured, of which more than 30 percent have been children.
Most of the civilian deaths, estimated at low at 500, high at 2000 - 3000, in the US invasion of Panama in 1989 civilian deaths were from air strikes.
I don't need to do all this, though. Just a single figure from Vietnam, guaranteed exclusively air strikes, puts me twice as far as I need to get to make my point. North Vietnamese civilians: 65,000 (Kutler, Lewy, Olson, Summers, Wallechinsky) by American bombing. Just as an aside, I found one paragraph that had never crossed my mind before, looking at air-scattered cluster bombs: "Scatterables were first introduced by the United States during the Vietnam War. However, they had severe consequences for U.S. troops, who often found themselves retreating through their own, unmarked minefields. Nearly one-third of all U.S. casualties during the war were due to landmines deployed by U.S. troops themselves".
Now, if I recall correctly, Adam, you were going to tell us what a just war is? BTS totally misunderstood the question, which was scarcely the surprise of the year, perhaps you'd like to offer your version. As a hint, you might like to copy and expand on a few words from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Up Canada???
BTS wrote: I disagree spot.Go and find a text book, and look up "just war". It's a technical term.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
What's Up Canada???
Adam
Where do I start? Could you please refrain from characterizing me based on what you believe me to be? As opposed to the warm, fuzzy feelings you attribute to me, I am afraid to cross the border because of the us/them attitude you and many others exhibit.
I haven't characterized you at all. Your statements speak for themselves. Are you not a moral relativist? That is the only thing I have accused you of. I've heard that "afraid to cross the border" before. I guess there has been a rash of abductions and beheading of Canucks. I've been to many forum boards and can't remember one instance of Canada-bashing. However, America-bashing is alive and well and quite vitriolic. Perhaps it is I who should be afraid to cross over your border. The hatred some Canadians exhibit to the U.S. (and I'm not speaking of you) is palpable.
This conversation seems to be twisting like a pretzel. I'll just concede that we'll have to remain in disagreement. However, in closing I would like to answer one point about "executing children". The U.S., until several months ago, did have states that sanctioned the death penalty for juvenile offenders. The minimum age for these offenders to be subject to the death penalty is 16 yrs old. . They are not executed until well into their adulthood if ever. Their crimes are heinous, that is why they get the death penalty.
Here are just a few examples:
Christopher Simmons – who was just 17 years old at the time of his offense – had received a May 1, 2002 execution date in Missouri. Christopher was convicted of murdering Shirley Crook. Her body was found in the Meramec River in St. Louis County on September 9, 1993. She had been tied with electric cable, leather straps and duct tape, had bruises on her body and fractured ribs. The medical examiner determined the cause of her death was drowning.
On October 6, 1987, Scott Hain and Robert Lambert were in a parking lot in Tulsa, OK. They approached a car in which Michael Houghton and Laura Sanders were sitting; and with Scott using a knife and Robert using a BB gun, they forced their way into the car. After having driven the car a short distance from the parking lot, Lambert and Scott tried to rob Houghton. When Houghton resisted, he was placed in the trunk of the car. A short time later, Sanders was also forced into the trunk. Lambert and Scott returned to the parking lot where, with Houghton's keys, they took Houghton's pickup truck. Lambert drove Houghton's truck, and Scott followed in Sanders' car. Upon reaching a rural road, Lambert set fire to Sanders' car, and he and Scott left the scene in Houghton's truck. Houghton and Sanders died in the trunk of the car from smoke inhalation.
TJ Jones is scheduled to be executed on August 8, 2002, for an offense he committed when he was barely 17 years old. He was sentenced to death in October 1994 for the carjacking murder of Willard Lewis Davis, a 75-year-old white man, in Longview, Texas, on February 2, 1994. The State's evidence showed that Mr. Davis was confronted by TJ, who was armed with a pistol, and three other youths at the end of his driveway. Mr. Davis complied when TJ ordered him to get out of his car, and TJ shot him once in the forehead before getting in the car and driving away with his accomplices.
On January 7, 1981, seventeen year old Kevin woke up and began another day of drinking and heavy drug use, which included whiskey, marijuana and mescaline given to him by his cousin. So, when David Buchanan called and asked Kevin to help rob the Chekker Oil Station, the two accompanied by Troy Johnson went to the station. Troy brought along his brother's gun. Kevin was heavily under the influence of alcohol, marijuana and hallucinogens. While Kevin looked for money, David took the attendant, Baerbel Poore into the station bathroom and began to sexually assault her. When Kevin came to the bathroom, David encouraged Kevin to join in which he did, sexually assaulting Ms. Poore. The boys then took her to a more remote area in the neighborhood where she was shot twice in the head. Kevin returned and picked up two large boxes of cigarettes and $140.
Yes, America executes children indeed. As repulsive as you may find the death penalty, certainly you are reasonable enough to discern that this is not the moral equivalent to walking on a bus with innocent toddlers and preteens and blowing it up. Even assuming both are wrong, can't you discern a difference? ......Can't you?
Where do I start? Could you please refrain from characterizing me based on what you believe me to be? As opposed to the warm, fuzzy feelings you attribute to me, I am afraid to cross the border because of the us/them attitude you and many others exhibit.
I haven't characterized you at all. Your statements speak for themselves. Are you not a moral relativist? That is the only thing I have accused you of. I've heard that "afraid to cross the border" before. I guess there has been a rash of abductions and beheading of Canucks. I've been to many forum boards and can't remember one instance of Canada-bashing. However, America-bashing is alive and well and quite vitriolic. Perhaps it is I who should be afraid to cross over your border. The hatred some Canadians exhibit to the U.S. (and I'm not speaking of you) is palpable.
This conversation seems to be twisting like a pretzel. I'll just concede that we'll have to remain in disagreement. However, in closing I would like to answer one point about "executing children". The U.S., until several months ago, did have states that sanctioned the death penalty for juvenile offenders. The minimum age for these offenders to be subject to the death penalty is 16 yrs old. . They are not executed until well into their adulthood if ever. Their crimes are heinous, that is why they get the death penalty.
Here are just a few examples:
Christopher Simmons – who was just 17 years old at the time of his offense – had received a May 1, 2002 execution date in Missouri. Christopher was convicted of murdering Shirley Crook. Her body was found in the Meramec River in St. Louis County on September 9, 1993. She had been tied with electric cable, leather straps and duct tape, had bruises on her body and fractured ribs. The medical examiner determined the cause of her death was drowning.
On October 6, 1987, Scott Hain and Robert Lambert were in a parking lot in Tulsa, OK. They approached a car in which Michael Houghton and Laura Sanders were sitting; and with Scott using a knife and Robert using a BB gun, they forced their way into the car. After having driven the car a short distance from the parking lot, Lambert and Scott tried to rob Houghton. When Houghton resisted, he was placed in the trunk of the car. A short time later, Sanders was also forced into the trunk. Lambert and Scott returned to the parking lot where, with Houghton's keys, they took Houghton's pickup truck. Lambert drove Houghton's truck, and Scott followed in Sanders' car. Upon reaching a rural road, Lambert set fire to Sanders' car, and he and Scott left the scene in Houghton's truck. Houghton and Sanders died in the trunk of the car from smoke inhalation.
TJ Jones is scheduled to be executed on August 8, 2002, for an offense he committed when he was barely 17 years old. He was sentenced to death in October 1994 for the carjacking murder of Willard Lewis Davis, a 75-year-old white man, in Longview, Texas, on February 2, 1994. The State's evidence showed that Mr. Davis was confronted by TJ, who was armed with a pistol, and three other youths at the end of his driveway. Mr. Davis complied when TJ ordered him to get out of his car, and TJ shot him once in the forehead before getting in the car and driving away with his accomplices.
On January 7, 1981, seventeen year old Kevin woke up and began another day of drinking and heavy drug use, which included whiskey, marijuana and mescaline given to him by his cousin. So, when David Buchanan called and asked Kevin to help rob the Chekker Oil Station, the two accompanied by Troy Johnson went to the station. Troy brought along his brother's gun. Kevin was heavily under the influence of alcohol, marijuana and hallucinogens. While Kevin looked for money, David took the attendant, Baerbel Poore into the station bathroom and began to sexually assault her. When Kevin came to the bathroom, David encouraged Kevin to join in which he did, sexually assaulting Ms. Poore. The boys then took her to a more remote area in the neighborhood where she was shot twice in the head. Kevin returned and picked up two large boxes of cigarettes and $140.
Yes, America executes children indeed. As repulsive as you may find the death penalty, certainly you are reasonable enough to discern that this is not the moral equivalent to walking on a bus with innocent toddlers and preteens and blowing it up. Even assuming both are wrong, can't you discern a difference? ......Can't you?
What's Up Canada???
Adam Zapple wrote: I guess there has been a rash of abductions and beheading of Canucks. I've been to many forum boards and can't remember one instance of Canada-bashing. Just as a question of fact, isn't "Canuck" considered offensive, these days? Isn't it on the same level as kike, yid, polack, paki and towelhead? Perhaps you just don't recognise Canada-bashing when you see it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
What's Up Canada???
Now, if I recall correctly, Adam, you were going to tell us what a just war is?
My final words on this tedious subject:
Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression, self defense, massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;
Aggression: Iraq invades Kuwait leading to first Gulf War. Iraq violates terms of cease fire and attacks U.N. mandated air patrols repeatedly.
Massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations: Iraq gasses Kurds, oppresses Shiites and other ethnic minorities. Republican Guard tortures Iraqi civilians. Uday and Qusay rape and torture Iraqi women. Requirement met.
Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Questionable, but Saddam's clear support for and funding of terrorist activities make this condition plausible. Requirement arguably met.
Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
Duly constituted public authorities: therefore the U.S. actions are just, the "insurgency" is not. Requirement met.
Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose; Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not.
Ensuring a madman doesn't get his hands on wmd and liberating the Iraqi people from his tyranny is a just cause. Requirement met. Requirement met.
Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
The U.S. hasn't used diproportionate measures. Iraq could have been flattened and the insurgency crippled by now via the vaunted air attacks. But the U.S. has gone to extreme measures to protect civilian life and Iraqi infrastructure. Probability of success is difficult but high. Requirement met.
Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[2]
Democracy. Iraqi's voting in droves for the first time in their lives. A representative government consisting of all factions. New infrastructures being built. Free markets. Requirement met.
Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Twelves years of weapons inspections and non-cooperation from Iraqi. 16 UN resolutions passed but ignored by Iraq. Final warning to comply. Requirement met.
"Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians.
Guess we can't pretend that the insurgency is a just cause any longer.
My final words on this tedious subject:
Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression, self defense, massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;
Aggression: Iraq invades Kuwait leading to first Gulf War. Iraq violates terms of cease fire and attacks U.N. mandated air patrols repeatedly.
Massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations: Iraq gasses Kurds, oppresses Shiites and other ethnic minorities. Republican Guard tortures Iraqi civilians. Uday and Qusay rape and torture Iraqi women. Requirement met.
Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Questionable, but Saddam's clear support for and funding of terrorist activities make this condition plausible. Requirement arguably met.
Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
Duly constituted public authorities: therefore the U.S. actions are just, the "insurgency" is not. Requirement met.
Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose; Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not.
Ensuring a madman doesn't get his hands on wmd and liberating the Iraqi people from his tyranny is a just cause. Requirement met. Requirement met.
Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
The U.S. hasn't used diproportionate measures. Iraq could have been flattened and the insurgency crippled by now via the vaunted air attacks. But the U.S. has gone to extreme measures to protect civilian life and Iraqi infrastructure. Probability of success is difficult but high. Requirement met.
Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[2]
Democracy. Iraqi's voting in droves for the first time in their lives. A representative government consisting of all factions. New infrastructures being built. Free markets. Requirement met.
Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Twelves years of weapons inspections and non-cooperation from Iraqi. 16 UN resolutions passed but ignored by Iraq. Final warning to comply. Requirement met.
"Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians.
Guess we can't pretend that the insurgency is a just cause any longer.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
What's Up Canada???
Just as a question of fact, isn't "Canuck" considered offensive, these days? Isn't it on the same level as kike, yid, polack, paki and towelhead? Perhaps you just don't recognise Canada-bashing when you see it.
Not to my knowledge. Of all the Canadians I have met, and I have met many, not one has ever expressed offense at the term. It is frequently used on other boards I frequent and it has never been deemed offensive. It is also the name of a hockey team. However, if any Canadians are offended by the term, my sincerest apologies. spot has come to your rescue.
Not to my knowledge. Of all the Canadians I have met, and I have met many, not one has ever expressed offense at the term. It is frequently used on other boards I frequent and it has never been deemed offensive. It is also the name of a hockey team. However, if any Canadians are offended by the term, my sincerest apologies. spot has come to your rescue.
What's Up Canada???
Adam Zapple wrote: My final words on this tedious subject:Ah. I didn't expect "I wouldn't mind, if the detail asked for was actually wanted instead of subsequently ignored as though I'd not gone and found it" to have much impact. Why did you ask me to get those details, Adam?
Adam Zapple wrote: Guess we can't pretend that the insurgency is a just cause any longer.I have never suggested, hinted or supposed that the insurgency is a just cause. Stop putting words into my mouth.
Now, if you'd like a critique of your justification that the current crusade is a just war, I'll be happy to oblige. I'm not going to in the teeth of "My final words on this tedious subject", though. Would you like to discuss the application of "Just War" to the current conflict?
Adam Zapple wrote: Guess we can't pretend that the insurgency is a just cause any longer.I have never suggested, hinted or supposed that the insurgency is a just cause. Stop putting words into my mouth.
Now, if you'd like a critique of your justification that the current crusade is a just war, I'll be happy to oblige. I'm not going to in the teeth of "My final words on this tedious subject", though. Would you like to discuss the application of "Just War" to the current conflict?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Up Canada???
spot wrote: Just as a question of fact, isn't "Canuck" considered offensive, these days? Isn't it on the same level as kike, yid, polack, paki and towelhead? Perhaps you just don't recognise Canada-bashing when you see it.
canock is NOT offensive to us ... one of our pro NFL hockey teams are the "canucks" so hardly offensive!
canock is NOT offensive to us ... one of our pro NFL hockey teams are the "canucks" so hardly offensive!
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
• Mae West
• Mae West
What's Up Canada???
minks wrote: canock is NOT offensive to us ... one of our pro NFL hockey teams are the "canucks" so hardly offensive!Good lord, minks, I could say water's wet and you'd be on my back. If you're making it personal, then make it personal, but get your facts right.
I would usually use the Oxford English Dictionary as definitive: "Canuck, adj. Of or pertaining to Canada or its inhabitants. In U.S. usage, gen. derogatory. "
For a US view of desired usage, http://www.randomhouse.com/words/language/oq_chart.html
Beyond that:
Is it a neutral nickname, or is it patronizing, or even offensive? A Vermonter or Ottawan may use the nickname self-referentially, but outsiders should use it cautiously. It's also a matter of context and the speaker's intent is it Canuck ingenuity, or those damn Canucks?
According to Canadian dictionaries, Canadian use of Canuck is not offensive. For example, it's the name of a hockey team. But if it's used by non-Canadians, especially if it's referring to French Canadians, it's usually offensive. I know Asians who address each other as Paki, but I'd not dream of doing it myself.
I would usually use the Oxford English Dictionary as definitive: "Canuck, adj. Of or pertaining to Canada or its inhabitants. In U.S. usage, gen. derogatory. "
For a US view of desired usage, http://www.randomhouse.com/words/language/oq_chart.html
Beyond that:
Is it a neutral nickname, or is it patronizing, or even offensive? A Vermonter or Ottawan may use the nickname self-referentially, but outsiders should use it cautiously. It's also a matter of context and the speaker's intent is it Canuck ingenuity, or those damn Canucks?
According to Canadian dictionaries, Canadian use of Canuck is not offensive. For example, it's the name of a hockey team. But if it's used by non-Canadians, especially if it's referring to French Canadians, it's usually offensive. I know Asians who address each other as Paki, but I'd not dream of doing it myself.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Up Canada???
um spot I was simply enforcing the statement, and what bloody facts were there to get right in my statement? Being a Canadian, I was simply giving an example of how Canuck was not deemed offensive. I read your friggin post and I was not arguing with you I was putting the point out there that is fine to call us canucks.
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
• Mae West
• Mae West
What's Up Canada???
Not only am I glad you clarified that, Far Rider, I'm glad I said it as, otherwise the same image might have occured to others. It occured to me quite honestly, BTW.
Obviously this thread is not about Canada and our "leaky borders" anymore. There should be a new thread on....damn, there are so many side issues happening do we separate them all?
Obviously this thread is not about Canada and our "leaky borders" anymore. There should be a new thread on....damn, there are so many side issues happening do we separate them all?
What's Up Canada???
minks wrote: um spot I was simply enforcing the statement, and what bloody facts were there to get right in my statement? Being a Canadian, I was simply giving an example of how Canuck was not deemed offensive. I read your friggin post and I was not arguing with you I was putting the point out there that is fine to call us canucks.It's simple, minks. If the OED says it's so, and Random House's style guide says it's so, and you say it isn't, you're outranked. Your fact is wrong.
That you live there is possibly your reason for thinking it's acceptable, but it's not an excuse for screaming at me every chance you get.
That you live there is possibly your reason for thinking it's acceptable, but it's not an excuse for screaming at me every chance you get.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Up Canada???
On a minor side note...the use of the term "Canuck".
I find its use here quite dubious being that it perhaps intends to discredit my opinion based on my country of residence. It is certainly not the worst thing I've been called...but then the more subtle the insult the more effect it may have. I much prefer it to "bleeding heart liberal" as "Canuck" is a much more accurate portrayal of me, personally. At least I am a Canadian. I am not a "liberal". Being Canadian does not actually mean I have a particular view point in common with any other Canadian as the same can be said of anyone from any given country. The act of naming groups and labeling is a poor debate tactic but one that is encountered too often. I think the Canucks (hockey team) suck too in case that is part of the insinuation...just to be clear.
I find its use here quite dubious being that it perhaps intends to discredit my opinion based on my country of residence. It is certainly not the worst thing I've been called...but then the more subtle the insult the more effect it may have. I much prefer it to "bleeding heart liberal" as "Canuck" is a much more accurate portrayal of me, personally. At least I am a Canadian. I am not a "liberal". Being Canadian does not actually mean I have a particular view point in common with any other Canadian as the same can be said of anyone from any given country. The act of naming groups and labeling is a poor debate tactic but one that is encountered too often. I think the Canucks (hockey team) suck too in case that is part of the insinuation...just to be clear.
What's Up Canada???
spot if canuck does not offend a lifer Canadian than I think as a lifer Canadian canuck is not offensive despit what books of "authority" state? I think I and other canadians are a good reliable source as to what name calling is offencive when pertaining to our heritage
Go on and ask outloud if Americans are offended by being called Yanks? And what if this differs from the "text" books are all the americans wrong??
Your though process is insane on this Spot and it isn't a personal jab at you it is a simple common sense kind of thing.
Go on and ask outloud if Americans are offended by being called Yanks? And what if this differs from the "text" books are all the americans wrong??
Your though process is insane on this Spot and it isn't a personal jab at you it is a simple common sense kind of thing.
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
• Mae West
• Mae West
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
What's Up Canada???
I find its use here quite dubious being that it perhaps intends to discredit my opinion based on my country of residence.
You have taken it entirely in the wrong vain. I intends to relieve my fingers of typing the additional letters to spell Canadian, nothing more. It's shorter. My experiences with other Canadians lends a tinge of affection to the term, a friendly nickname ie Yanks or Seppo. But since it offends you, I will no longer use it.
You have taken it entirely in the wrong vain. I intends to relieve my fingers of typing the additional letters to spell Canadian, nothing more. It's shorter. My experiences with other Canadians lends a tinge of affection to the term, a friendly nickname ie Yanks or Seppo. But since it offends you, I will no longer use it.
What's Up Canada???
Did I say I was offended? I think not. The term Yanks is not one that I would think to be taken offence to either and would considerably lighten the load on my fingers yet it never occurs to me to use it as it is a label and I don't debate that way. That is all.
What's Up Canada???
minks wrote: Your though process is insane on this Spot and it isn't a personal jab at you it is a simple common sense kind of thing.My apologies, minks. I had assumed you were continuing your "take your over clever self to a better place" hint. If you were actually just answering my simple query with your view of the truth then that's quite different. Perhaps the capitals in "NOT" misled me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Up Canada???
spot wrote: My apologies, minks. I had assumed you were continuing your "take your over clever self to a better place" hint. If you were actually just answering my simple query with your view of the truth then that's quite different. Perhaps the capitals in "NOT" misled me.
Oh good lord the caps not was quite simply me saying a very strong NO we do not find canuck offensive
Oh good lord the caps not was quite simply me saying a very strong NO we do not find canuck offensive
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
• Mae West
• Mae West
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
What's Up Canada???
Creepers!! This garden must get a lot of mulch from all the chips on shoulders. Cripes! What do you want me to say koan? I explained my use and apologized and you're still rapping my knuckles. My apologies again, you weren't offended. I was labeling. I was discrediting your opinion. I am naming groups. It was a subtle insult. I'm glad you weren't offended. I'm a cad! My apologies.
What's Up Canada???
Back to the real, new topic of this thread...
your reasoning behind this being a just war implicitly relies on flawed information.
Human Rights Watch has issued a denial of this war as "just" on humanitarian reasoning. The HRW does not make judgements of this sort lightly. It is not in their mandate to judge the justification of war unless the argument of humanitarian causes is being used to justify. The issued a denial of their support on that claim here.
Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.
...
In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.
your reasoning behind this being a just war implicitly relies on flawed information.
Human Rights Watch has issued a denial of this war as "just" on humanitarian reasoning. The HRW does not make judgements of this sort lightly. It is not in their mandate to judge the justification of war unless the argument of humanitarian causes is being used to justify. The issued a denial of their support on that claim here.
Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.
...
In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.
What's Up Canada???
Far Rider wrote: You picked out of that article what you wanted to Koan. And if thats typical of the articles you post then, I'll not waste my time on you any more.You do seem to have left out quite a relevant section yourself, Adam:
Clarification of Statement by Army Private Matt Guckenheimer
Tuesday, June 4, 2002
Recently your paper quoted me as saying that my unit was ordered to kill women and children.
I would like to clarify this quote and provide more context.
Prior to the operation, we were made aware of the fact that the hostile forces of the Whaleback might include women and children. In that event, if those women and children showed hostile intent, we were ordered to kill them as hostile forces, just like any other hostile force we encountered. However, this does not mean that we were ordered to slaughter noncombatants such as babies.
We were further informed that some of these children are trained starting at a very young age to be soldiers. Knowing this, we could not afford to just dismiss them as noncombatants.
However, I do not want anyone to get the idea that we were ever sent out to kill anyone and anything that moves. We are better than that, both as a military unit and as a society.
Matt Guckenheimer
Cayuga Heights, May 31
Clarification of Statement by Army Private Matt Guckenheimer
Tuesday, June 4, 2002
Recently your paper quoted me as saying that my unit was ordered to kill women and children.
I would like to clarify this quote and provide more context.
Prior to the operation, we were made aware of the fact that the hostile forces of the Whaleback might include women and children. In that event, if those women and children showed hostile intent, we were ordered to kill them as hostile forces, just like any other hostile force we encountered. However, this does not mean that we were ordered to slaughter noncombatants such as babies.
We were further informed that some of these children are trained starting at a very young age to be soldiers. Knowing this, we could not afford to just dismiss them as noncombatants.
However, I do not want anyone to get the idea that we were ever sent out to kill anyone and anything that moves. We are better than that, both as a military unit and as a society.
Matt Guckenheimer
Cayuga Heights, May 31
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Up Canada???
the article that I took it from was a different one. It only included that section of quote that I used. The part at the end of your information seems to be additional and separate from the time of the soldiers statements. The response to inquiries at the time of the article I read were to the extent of "no comment".
I did not conclude from what you posted whether the two weeks was completed when the attack began and whether what the soldier had been told was, in fact, false. There is no knowing outside of what the soldier says. If he misunderstood then perhaps others do as well. I am not misquoting. There was no further info available on that particular site.
I did not conclude from what you posted whether the two weeks was completed when the attack began and whether what the soldier had been told was, in fact, false. There is no knowing outside of what the soldier says. If he misunderstood then perhaps others do as well. I am not misquoting. There was no further info available on that particular site.
What's Up Canada???
Re: arguments on "just war".
There are arguments for both side of all factors of consideration. Both sides are presented well at this site.
There are legitimate reasons given for both points of view.
There are arguments for both side of all factors of consideration. Both sides are presented well at this site.
There are legitimate reasons given for both points of view.
What's Up Canada???
Far Rider wrote: Well spot my names not Adam, its Rob, and had I had the article you just posted Id have just printed that. That clarifies it perfectly.My apologies, old man, I really ought to look at the screen more often and my fingers less. I never learned to type, I'm far too slow at it, it hurts my joints and my eyesight is feeble. I need a rebore and a few replacement parts.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Up Canada???
spot wrote: My apologies, old man, I really ought to look at the screen more often and my fingers less. I never learned to type, I'm far too slow at it, it hurts my joints and my eyesight is feeble. I need a rebore and a few replacement parts.
Gee I just love your feeble (pun intended) excuses spot. You are a master.
Gee I just love your feeble (pun intended) excuses spot. You are a master.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
What's Up Canada???
BTS wrote: Gee I just love your feeble (pun intended) excuses spot. You are a master.I attributed a post of Far Rider's to Adam, for goodness' sake! One mis-attribution in a thousand posts, and I apologised for it as graciously as I knew how - you want I should disembowel myself?
Don't answer that.
Don't answer that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.