Gotcha
-
It's easy to say 'good for them', but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? I understand your concerns but isn't it about the time we took the gloves off and fought these bastards on their own terms. If they can strike anywhere at anytime against innocent civilians - why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
-
Christian Graus wrote: but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? I understand your concerns but isn't it about the time we took the gloves off and fought these bastards on their own terms. If they can strike anywhere at anytime against innocent civilians - why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
Michael P Butler wrote: understand your concerns but isn't it about the time we took the gloves off and fought these bastards on their own terms. If they can strike anywhere at anytime against innocent civilians - why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Then after that it would be ok for the affected country to start bombing us cities? (not that they could but anyway) /Magnus
- I don't necessarily agree with everything I say
-
Michael P Butler wrote: understand your concerns but isn't it about the time we took the gloves off and fought these bastards on their own terms. If they can strike anywhere at anytime against innocent civilians - why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Then after that it would be ok for the affected country to start bombing us cities? (not that they could but anyway) /Magnus
- I don't necessarily agree with everything I say
_Magnus_ wrote: Then after that it would be ok for the affected country to start bombing us cities? (not that they could but anyway) Slight difference in scale between taking out wanted terrorists and bombing civilian cities. Remember this is a war between the US and the terrorists. The US probably didn't see any nice way of capturing the bad guys so they went for a military solution. (One which didn't seem to cause any collatral damage ) Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
-
Christian Graus wrote: but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? I understand your concerns but isn't it about the time we took the gloves off and fought these bastards on their own terms. If they can strike anywhere at anytime against innocent civilians - why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
Michael P Butler wrote: If they can strike anywhere at anytime against innocent civilians - why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Hell yes, I agree. What I'm saying is that the US answers to no-one regarding who it feels is a bad guy, how they know, and how much collateral damage they will accept. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
Christian Graus wrote: but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? I understand your concerns but isn't it about the time we took the gloves off and fought these bastards on their own terms. If they can strike anywhere at anytime against innocent civilians - why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
-
_Magnus_ wrote: Then after that it would be ok for the affected country to start bombing us cities? (not that they could but anyway) Slight difference in scale between taking out wanted terrorists and bombing civilian cities. Remember this is a war between the US and the terrorists. The US probably didn't see any nice way of capturing the bad guys so they went for a military solution. (One which didn't seem to cause any collatral damage ) Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
Michael P Butler wrote: One which didn't seem to cause any collatral damage I hear the infrastructure in Afghanistan... oh wait, what infrastructure, it was bombed back to the stone age. It was not that great to start out with, but allied bombs did destroy many roads, bridges, buildings, air strips, power plants etc. Same thing happened in Bosnia. The US used bombs which specifically destroyed power plants. A friend of mine was living there, trying to go to varsity everyday and make a life. But then the water stopped, then the electricity stopped and I have not heard from him for two years now. (I am not saying the US should not have gone after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but don't say there was no collateral damage, there was plenty.)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson -
Michael P Butler wrote: If they can strike anywhere at anytime against innocent civilians - why can't we do the same to the bad guys. Hell yes, I agree. What I'm saying is that the US answers to no-one regarding who it feels is a bad guy, how they know, and how much collateral damage they will accept. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: What I'm saying is that the US answers to no-one regarding who it feels is a bad guy, how they know, and how much collateral damage they will accept. I agree. Not only that but the US expects one thing form the rest of the world, and then goes and does exactly what it has forbidden others to do. They want accountability in this world, but they won't be a part of the ICC. Hmmmm.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson -
Christian Graus wrote: What I'm saying is that the US answers to no-one regarding who it feels is a bad guy, how they know, and how much collateral damage they will accept. I agree. Not only that but the US expects one thing form the rest of the world, and then goes and does exactly what it has forbidden others to do. They want accountability in this world, but they won't be a part of the ICC. Hmmmm.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul WatsonPaul Watson wrote: They want accountability in this world, but they won't be a part of the ICC. Hmmmm. Paul, You jeopardize your credibility with this statement. The ICC topic has been discussed more than once and answers as to why have been given. The way you suggest ulterior motives with your Hmmm is very poor. http://ezdragon.cortland.edu/log/us/us741/us741.htm Under the ICC, American citizens and U.S. military personnel are not protected by the same rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizens have the right to a "trial by an impartial jury." The ICC does not acknowledge this right. Instead, a panel of United Nations-appointed judges hears each trial where a majority vote decides the fate of the defendant. With the loss of a trial by an impartial jury, the accused may face judges biased towards their home country and government. Under the Fifth Amendment, U.S. citizens are protected against double jeopardy. Again, the ICC does not acknowledge this right. Therefore, an individual may face prosecution more than once for the same crime. The US has always supported being accountable.
-
Michael P Butler wrote: One which didn't seem to cause any collatral damage I hear the infrastructure in Afghanistan... oh wait, what infrastructure, it was bombed back to the stone age. It was not that great to start out with, but allied bombs did destroy many roads, bridges, buildings, air strips, power plants etc. Same thing happened in Bosnia. The US used bombs which specifically destroyed power plants. A friend of mine was living there, trying to go to varsity everyday and make a life. But then the water stopped, then the electricity stopped and I have not heard from him for two years now. (I am not saying the US should not have gone after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but don't say there was no collateral damage, there was plenty.)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul WatsonPaul Watson wrote: but don't say there was no collateral damage, there was plenty.) I was referring to this specific incident not the entire war. Obviously the attacks in Afghanistan claimed a lot of innocent lives. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
-
I could agree on this one, but what about Justice ? What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? What about a mistake ??
Who gives a f*ck If my life sucks ? I just know one day I won't give up Beg For Me/KoЯn
KaЯl wrote: but what about Justice ? Justice! Justice takes many forms and I'd quiet like the justice of a known terrorist dying by the methods he employs. He who lives by the bomb will die by the bomb. KaЯl wrote: What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? What about a mistake ?? Obviously we need to take this on an incident by incident basis. This time the Americans seem to have executed a reasonably accurate take down. Next time they might not be so lucky. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
-
It's easy to say 'good for them', but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: It's easy to say 'good for them', but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? The same court that the terrorist are answering to for killing 1000's of people. This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. The US is not randomly going in and killing innocent people. (I am not saying errors do not happen, I do feel that the US goes too much further lengths than anyone else to minimize those errors.) I hope this is not what you meant, although it is easy for me to read it that way. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
-
Paul Watson wrote: They want accountability in this world, but they won't be a part of the ICC. Hmmmm. Paul, You jeopardize your credibility with this statement. The ICC topic has been discussed more than once and answers as to why have been given. The way you suggest ulterior motives with your Hmmm is very poor. http://ezdragon.cortland.edu/log/us/us741/us741.htm Under the ICC, American citizens and U.S. military personnel are not protected by the same rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizens have the right to a "trial by an impartial jury." The ICC does not acknowledge this right. Instead, a panel of United Nations-appointed judges hears each trial where a majority vote decides the fate of the defendant. With the loss of a trial by an impartial jury, the accused may face judges biased towards their home country and government. Under the Fifth Amendment, U.S. citizens are protected against double jeopardy. Again, the ICC does not acknowledge this right. Therefore, an individual may face prosecution more than once for the same crime. The US has always supported being accountable.
I say Hmmmm because the US has not come out with a solution. All the US has done is reject the ICC. Why do other nations accept not having the double jeporday clause? Why do other nations accept a trial by a "partial" jury? If these problems the US have with the ICC are so fundamental why is the ICC even going ahead? Surely other nations would not join if the foundations of the ICC are so flawed. Has the US said they will join the ICC if these parts are rectified? If so, has the ICC deliberated on it or at least tried to find a work around? I would like to see the US come up with a version of the ICC they find agreeable and work it out with the other nations. All I have seen is the US rejecting the rest of the world. Considering that the US is in a position where it's actions and impending actions could go very, very wrong, I can see why it does not want to enter into the ICC. Mayber after countries have been flattened, dictators overthrown and terrorists killed the US will join the ICC and reap the benefits (if there are any.) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US has always supported being accountable. I think only US citizens really believe that. Speaking from another country our view of the US is a big nation with a big stick which does what it wants. Sorry Michael but that is how we see the US. Your president has backed that view up immensely with his "you are either with us or against us" speeches and his "with or without you we will bring about regime change in Iraq." So whether the world agrees or not, it does not matter. Just imagine for a minute that Al-Qaeda had attacked South Africa and killed thousands. Just imagine for a minute that SA had the military resources to know go and invade Afghanistan. Do you for one moment think the US would allow that? I will bet not. SA would be reviled and sanctions imposed again. So how come the US can?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson -
Christian Graus wrote: It's easy to say 'good for them', but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? The same court that the terrorist are answering to for killing 1000's of people. This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. The US is not randomly going in and killing innocent people. (I am not saying errors do not happen, I do feel that the US goes too much further lengths than anyone else to minimize those errors.) I hope this is not what you meant, although it is easy for me to read it that way. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The same court that the terrorist are answering to for killing 1000's of people. The court of popular opinion ? The US is screwed..... Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. Bollocks. The world at large does not want to support terrorism, we also don't want to be ruled and bullied by the US. That is a different matter entirely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US is not randomly going in and killing innocent people. (I am not saying errors do not happen, I do feel that the US goes too much further lengths than anyone else to minimize those errors.) I am saying that errors DO happen, and also that this provides an umbrella for the US to kill people and claim that they were involved. I'm not saying it IS happening, I'm saying that there is no independant force that is allowed to judge if this is the case or otherwise. Basically the USA is a law unto itself in the world arena. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
I could agree on this one, but what about Justice ? What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? What about a mistake ??
Who gives a f*ck If my life sucks ? I just know one day I won't give up Beg For Me/KoЯn
KaЯl wrote: I could agree on this one, but what about Justice ? What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? I agree with your concern, but I feel that all are responsible for what they allow their country (region) to support to at least some extent. They support harboring these criminals so have taken on that risk. KaЯl wrote: What about a mistake ?? Also agree with your concern here. However other options for my country do not exist other than doing nothing (because we may make a mistake) and just sit back for more of our citizens to be randomly murdered. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
-
I say Hmmmm because the US has not come out with a solution. All the US has done is reject the ICC. Why do other nations accept not having the double jeporday clause? Why do other nations accept a trial by a "partial" jury? If these problems the US have with the ICC are so fundamental why is the ICC even going ahead? Surely other nations would not join if the foundations of the ICC are so flawed. Has the US said they will join the ICC if these parts are rectified? If so, has the ICC deliberated on it or at least tried to find a work around? I would like to see the US come up with a version of the ICC they find agreeable and work it out with the other nations. All I have seen is the US rejecting the rest of the world. Considering that the US is in a position where it's actions and impending actions could go very, very wrong, I can see why it does not want to enter into the ICC. Mayber after countries have been flattened, dictators overthrown and terrorists killed the US will join the ICC and reap the benefits (if there are any.) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US has always supported being accountable. I think only US citizens really believe that. Speaking from another country our view of the US is a big nation with a big stick which does what it wants. Sorry Michael but that is how we see the US. Your president has backed that view up immensely with his "you are either with us or against us" speeches and his "with or without you we will bring about regime change in Iraq." So whether the world agrees or not, it does not matter. Just imagine for a minute that Al-Qaeda had attacked South Africa and killed thousands. Just imagine for a minute that SA had the military resources to know go and invade Afghanistan. Do you for one moment think the US would allow that? I will bet not. SA would be reviled and sanctions imposed again. So how come the US can?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul WatsonPaul Watson wrote: I say Hmmmm because the US has not come out with a solution. Come on Paul, Go back and look at history. The US has always (since 1918) supported world forums and has been the principle backer for them. Paul Watson wrote: Just imagine for a minute that Al-Qaeda had attacked South Africa and killed thousands. Just imagine for a minute that SA had the military resources to know go and invade Afghanistan. Do you for one moment think the US would allow that? I will bet not. Yes I can see that and firmly believe you would have been supported by the US. At this point I think we will just have to disagree. I am simply taking your agruments as "Big Bad US is automatically at fault no matter what facts exist." I have to leave to go vote. Take care. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The same court that the terrorist are answering to for killing 1000's of people. The court of popular opinion ? The US is screwed..... Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. Bollocks. The world at large does not want to support terrorism, we also don't want to be ruled and bullied by the US. That is a different matter entirely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US is not randomly going in and killing innocent people. (I am not saying errors do not happen, I do feel that the US goes too much further lengths than anyone else to minimize those errors.) I am saying that errors DO happen, and also that this provides an umbrella for the US to kill people and claim that they were involved. I'm not saying it IS happening, I'm saying that there is no independant force that is allowed to judge if this is the case or otherwise. Basically the USA is a law unto itself in the world arena. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: I am saying that errors DO happen OK, Question: Do you allow your police or military to handle weapons? They may make an error and kill someone. Why do you allow this? "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
-
Paul Watson wrote: They want accountability in this world, but they won't be a part of the ICC. Hmmmm. Paul, You jeopardize your credibility with this statement. The ICC topic has been discussed more than once and answers as to why have been given. The way you suggest ulterior motives with your Hmmm is very poor. http://ezdragon.cortland.edu/log/us/us741/us741.htm Under the ICC, American citizens and U.S. military personnel are not protected by the same rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizens have the right to a "trial by an impartial jury." The ICC does not acknowledge this right. Instead, a panel of United Nations-appointed judges hears each trial where a majority vote decides the fate of the defendant. With the loss of a trial by an impartial jury, the accused may face judges biased towards their home country and government. Under the Fifth Amendment, U.S. citizens are protected against double jeopardy. Again, the ICC does not acknowledge this right. Therefore, an individual may face prosecution more than once for the same crime. The US has always supported being accountable.
Here is the root of my problem with the situation: As a citizen of another country I want to be assured of two things. One, that the US alone does not just invade and destroy my country without worldwide agreement that we "deserve" it. i.e. The US must discuss things with the rest of the world and then even if the decision is not to their liking, comply. Right now this point is feeling very shaky what with Bush not giving a toss what even other bigger nations think. Two, that if a US soldier performs some kind of atrocity in my country that he is held up to our law, or at least a law that we agree to (like the ICC.) i.e. Right now that soldier is held to US law and my country may not agree with US law. When a US soldier enters another country they should do so with full realisation that they are outside of the US now, that this is not their personal stomping ground, that if they do something wrong they will be responsible for it according to the law of the country (or the the law the country agrees to.) I am sure there have been plenty of US soldiers court marshaled and locked up for doing something wrong in another country. But I think a lot of people feel that if the US soldier happens to be someone important to the US, then the US will step in and tell the rest of the world to fuck off. All in all none of us have faith that the US respects the rest of the world. You are untouchable and we don't like that. Enjoy the voting :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson -
KaЯl wrote: but what about Justice ? Justice! Justice takes many forms and I'd quiet like the justice of a known terrorist dying by the methods he employs. He who lives by the bomb will die by the bomb. KaЯl wrote: What about the people perhaps standing near the bombed car ? What about a mistake ?? Obviously we need to take this on an incident by incident basis. This time the Americans seem to have executed a reasonably accurate take down. Next time they might not be so lucky. Michael Life’s not a song. Life isn’t bliss. Life is just this. It’s living. -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once more, with feeling
Michael P Butler wrote: Justice takes many forms Justice means IMHO the right to have a fair trial and the right to defend. Michael P Butler wrote: He who lives by the bomb will die by the bomb It's also true for the bomber of the bomber, right ?
Who gives a f*ck If my life sucks ? I just know one day I won't give up Beg For Me/KoЯn
-
Christian Graus wrote: It's easy to say 'good for them', but what international court does the US answer to as it kills people on foreign soil ? The same court that the terrorist are answering to for killing 1000's of people. This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. The US is not randomly going in and killing innocent people. (I am not saying errors do not happen, I do feel that the US goes too much further lengths than anyone else to minimize those errors.) I hope this is not what you meant, although it is easy for me to read it that way. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. Amen. Islamic society could end terrorism tomorrow if it really wanted to. Either it does not want to, or its political/social structure is simply too incompetent to deal with the problem. In either case, the U.S. is not answerable to any external political authority to do what we must to avoid being attacked. The rest of the world can help us, get out of our way, or fight with the bad guys, makes me no never mind either way. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The same court that the terrorist are answering to for killing 1000's of people. The court of popular opinion ? The US is screwed..... Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This would not be the case if all others would support bringing terrorist to justice, but that is does not happen, so to defend ones country you are forced into action like this. Bollocks. The world at large does not want to support terrorism, we also don't want to be ruled and bullied by the US. That is a different matter entirely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US is not randomly going in and killing innocent people. (I am not saying errors do not happen, I do feel that the US goes too much further lengths than anyone else to minimize those errors.) I am saying that errors DO happen, and also that this provides an umbrella for the US to kill people and claim that they were involved. I'm not saying it IS happening, I'm saying that there is no independant force that is allowed to judge if this is the case or otherwise. Basically the USA is a law unto itself in the world arena. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: Basically the USA is a law unto itself in the world arena. A right we've earned. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle