I sometimes think that the mentality that sees the war as play still prevails: when we talk about playing dirty, as uniformed and civilian clothed, with briefings and insignia etc it all has a certain air of ritualization . . . even the language used 'theatre of war' etc
I wrote post the above to show that as long as we hold onto the pretense that International Law should be adhered to inherently, then, in a way we are living within a set of guides that ritualize warfare and therefor make of it a kind of play
better to admit that with war there are no rules that way any subsidiary merely competative motivations could be seen for what they are, and quelled before they cause horrors, that way we don't mistake killing for play .. .
I know this might not make sense to anyone perhaps you need to read the books that I have been reading on the history of the idea . . . . anyway . . .
I thought we were talking about "illegal combatants" and how do you define terrorist? If say the Kurds took up arms against Saddam would they be terrorists?
They hit military targets, no. They target civilians, yes.
After the war, she [Bush admin?] will have to try to resolve this problem, and to decide to the future of these people.
Why the hell do you think it's Bush administration that should, can or has a right to decide the future of the people of a sovereign country? The history of Iraq is not less than 1000 years. Compare it to the history of the USA and tell me who should teach who. I'm not supporting Saddam Hussein here, but why do you guys believe that US has every right over other nations? Why not China? They at least have the largest population on earth and if you line up all humankind and see what they vote for, I'd say China is much more important that US in deciding anything on our planet.
As for PoWs from Afghanistan in Guantanamo Bay, I don't understand why they are held in US (they are not US citizens, right?), why Bush applies US laws to them (they are not US citizens, right?) and why they are tortured (if they are treated like US citizens, are US citizens normally tortured in prisons as well?).
Um? Because we're the ones fighting the war? Along with the UK and some others. Maybe that's why. If we let France do it they'll sell Iraq everything they need to build a nuke. So France is out.
Um? Because we're the ones fighting the war? Along with the UK and some others. Maybe that's why. If we let France do it they'll sell Iraq everything they need to build a nuke. So France is out.
So to have the right to decide the fate of other nations all you have to do is attack those nations? Then you claim the right 'because you're the ones fighting the war'? Is it that simple?
To those who think they have any rights at all here's a recipe: come to your neighbour and kick him in the guts and say it's because he does not deserve such a beautiful wife. Listen to what he answers.
So to have the right to decide the fate of other nations all you have to do is attack those nations? Then you claim the right 'because you're the ones fighting the war'? Is it that simple?
To those who think they have any rights at all here's a recipe: come to your neighbour and kick him in the guts and say it's because he does not deserve such a beautiful wife. Listen to what he answers.
If he's been beating and mentally abusing her, and after I had called the police many times to do something about it he still does it, I possibly would.
And rightly so. But you'd still go to jail for assault. And if you killed him for it, you'd get 25 to life.
To go to war, not only do we need a reason, we need a right.
Definitely.
What I'd have to consider is whether my action might save her life, and then weigh it against the consequences that I was willing to face.
If I had thought that I'd exhausted any options that the law provided me, then I might consider it.
At what point do my neighbours husbands rights supercede hers?
Ideally, my neighbour would exercise her right to defend herself, but her husband is a big guy, and she's afraid of the consequences should she fail. That's enough to stop her from trying.
Interesting analogy to the neighbor. Of course the major difference is that national laws re: assault are actually enforced, whereas international law is not. Nations like the US can do whatever they want on the international scene without having to fear going to prison.
That's why to me, the issue is legitimacy more than legality. If you know the cops won't do anything, and you go beat up your neighbor, you've now set a precedent where you won't be able to argue that it's illegitimate for your neighbor to do the same to others, or even to you. So when that big Chinese fellah down the street starts beating up your friend, it will be all that much more difficult to get the neighborhood to pressure him to stop.
Interesting analogy to the neighbor. Of course the major difference is that national laws re: assault are actually enforced, whereas international law is not. Nations like the US can do whatever they want on the international scene without having to fear going to prison.
That's why to me, the issue is legitimacy more than legality. If you know the cops won't do anything, and you go beat up your neighbor, you've now set a precedent where you won't be able to argue that it's illegitimate for your neighbor to do the same to others, or even to you. So when that big Chinese fellah down the street starts beating up your friend, it will be all that much more difficult to get the neighborhood to pressure him to stop.
I don't want to keep on this neighbour analogy, as it diverts from the issue at hand, but I do want to respond to something you said.
In the neighbour situation, my actions would definitely be illegitimate if I hadn't exhausted any and all recourse under law. What I have to do is prove to the neighbourhood that there was no other choice. Not that i just 'knew' the cops wouldn't do anything, but in fact they won't do anything.
Hopefully I would be able to show that my intervention was needed, and that my actions did not endanger the welfare of the guy on the street who may be beat up at some later time.
Why the hell do you think it's Bush administration that should, can or has a right to decide the future of the people of a sovereign country? The history of Iraq is not less than 1000 years. Compare it to the history of the USA and tell me who should teach who. I'm not supporting Saddam Hussein here, but why do you guys believe that US has every right over other nations? Why not China? They at least have the largest population on earth and if you line up all humankind and see what they vote for, I'd say China is much more important that US in deciding anything on our planet.
As for PoWs from Afghanistan in Guantanamo Bay, I don't understand why they are held in US (they are not US citizens, right?), why Bush applies US laws to them (they are not US citizens, right?) and why they are tortured (if they are treated like US citizens, are US citizens normally tortured in prisons as well?).
Firs, here is the entire quote and not some words taking out of context :
" My point was not to say that the management of these talibans where perfect : it's difficult and new solutions must be found. Actually the Bush admin do not nothing to try to solve the problem. After the war, she will have to try to resolve this problem, and to decide to the future of these people. The statu-quo situation of these people should not last forever."
As you see it did not refer at all with the Iraqi pows, but with the Talibans in guantanamo bay. And it's the responsability of Bush because this prisonners are in the hand of US. Anyway i am sure that china will keep them better than US for sure, we know how China is in advance in the human rights especially for their prisonners.
So the US military has a policy of specifically and purposely targetting civilians, who hold no military role?
I wouldn't call it a policy, but the US Military has certainly targeted civilian areas and therefore civilians. Now how about this the terrorists blow up an army barracks, that's not a civilian target, are they still terrorists? Kind of a complicated issue.
I wouldn't call it a policy, but the US Military has certainly targeted civilian areas and therefore civilians. Now how about this the terrorists blow up an army barracks, that's not a civilian target, are they still terrorists? Kind of a complicated issue.
Christ! We need new buzzwords!! All these new situations are begging for a huge marketing drive. The copywriters at Saatchi & Saatchi, TBWA/Chiat/Day and BBDO are going to be kept busy for years to come!
Comments
I sometimes think that the mentality that sees the war as play still prevails: when we talk about playing dirty, as uniformed and civilian clothed, with briefings and insignia etc it all has a certain air of ritualization . . . even the language used 'theatre of war' etc
I wrote post the above to show that as long as we hold onto the pretense that International Law should be adhered to inherently, then, in a way we are living within a set of guides that ritualize warfare and therefor make of it a kind of play
better to admit that with war there are no rules that way any subsidiary merely competative motivations could be seen for what they are, and quelled before they cause horrors, that way we don't mistake killing for play .. .
I know this might not make sense to anyone perhaps you need to read the books that I have been reading on the history of the idea . . . . anyway . . .
Originally posted by trick fall
I thought we were talking about "illegal combatants" and how do you define terrorist? If say the Kurds took up arms against Saddam would they be terrorists?
They hit military targets, no. They target civilians, yes.
Originally posted by Tulkas
They hit military targets, no. They target civilians, yes.
Sorry to interfer, but the facts that only civilians target are allowed during war, is written in the geneva convention.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Sorry to interfer, but the facts that only civilians target are allowed during war, is written in the geneva convention.
don't you mean military targets?!?!
Originally posted by pfflam
don't you mean military targets?!?!
And if so, that's my point. They are terrorists if they target civilians.
Originally posted by Tulkas
And if so, that's my point. They are terrorists if they target civilians.
Originally posted by pfflam
don't you mean military targets?!?!
Opps , my mistake
Originally posted by Powerdoc
After the war, she [Bush admin?] will have to try to resolve this problem, and to decide to the future of these people.
Why the hell do you think it's Bush administration that should, can or has a right to decide the future of the people of a sovereign country? The history of Iraq is not less than 1000 years. Compare it to the history of the USA and tell me who should teach who. I'm not supporting Saddam Hussein here, but why do you guys believe that US has every right over other nations? Why not China? They at least have the largest population on earth and if you line up all humankind and see what they vote for, I'd say China is much more important that US in deciding anything on our planet.
As for PoWs from Afghanistan in Guantanamo Bay, I don't understand why they are held in US (they are not US citizens, right?), why Bush applies US laws to them (they are not US citizens, right?) and why they are tortured (if they are treated like US citizens, are US citizens normally tortured in prisons as well?).
Originally posted by Scott
Um? Because we're the ones fighting the war? Along with the UK and some others. Maybe that's why. If we let France do it they'll sell Iraq everything they need to build a nuke. So France is out.
So to have the right to decide the fate of other nations all you have to do is attack those nations? Then you claim the right 'because you're the ones fighting the war'? Is it that simple?
To those who think they have any rights at all here's a recipe: come to your neighbour and kick him in the guts and say it's because he does not deserve such a beautiful wife. Listen to what he answers.
Originally posted by costique
So to have the right to decide the fate of other nations all you have to do is attack those nations? Then you claim the right 'because you're the ones fighting the war'? Is it that simple?
To those who think they have any rights at all here's a recipe: come to your neighbour and kick him in the guts and say it's because he does not deserve such a beautiful wife. Listen to what he answers.
If he's been beating and mentally abusing her, and after I had called the police many times to do something about it he still does it, I possibly would.
They hit military targets, no. They target civilians, yes.
The US military could definitely qualify as terrorists under that definition.
Originally posted by tonton
And rightly so. But you'd still go to jail for assault. And if you killed him for it, you'd get 25 to life.
To go to war, not only do we need a reason, we need a right.
Definitely.
What I'd have to consider is whether my action might save her life, and then weigh it against the consequences that I was willing to face.
If I had thought that I'd exhausted any options that the law provided me, then I might consider it.
At what point do my neighbours husbands rights supercede hers?
Ideally, my neighbour would exercise her right to defend herself, but her husband is a big guy, and she's afraid of the consequences should she fail. That's enough to stop her from trying.
That's why to me, the issue is legitimacy more than legality. If you know the cops won't do anything, and you go beat up your neighbor, you've now set a precedent where you won't be able to argue that it's illegitimate for your neighbor to do the same to others, or even to you. So when that big Chinese fellah down the street starts beating up your friend, it will be all that much more difficult to get the neighborhood to pressure him to stop.
Originally posted by BRussell
Interesting analogy to the neighbor. Of course the major difference is that national laws re: assault are actually enforced, whereas international law is not. Nations like the US can do whatever they want on the international scene without having to fear going to prison.
That's why to me, the issue is legitimacy more than legality. If you know the cops won't do anything, and you go beat up your neighbor, you've now set a precedent where you won't be able to argue that it's illegitimate for your neighbor to do the same to others, or even to you. So when that big Chinese fellah down the street starts beating up your friend, it will be all that much more difficult to get the neighborhood to pressure him to stop.
I don't want to keep on this neighbour analogy, as it diverts from the issue at hand, but I do want to respond to something you said.
In the neighbour situation, my actions would definitely be illegitimate if I hadn't exhausted any and all recourse under law. What I have to do is prove to the neighbourhood that there was no other choice. Not that i just 'knew' the cops wouldn't do anything, but in fact they won't do anything.
Hopefully I would be able to show that my intervention was needed, and that my actions did not endanger the welfare of the guy on the street who may be beat up at some later time.
Originally posted by trick fall
The US military could definitely qualify as terrorists under that definition.
So the US military has a policy of specifically and purposely targetting civilians, who hold no military role?
Originally posted by costique
Why the hell do you think it's Bush administration that should, can or has a right to decide the future of the people of a sovereign country? The history of Iraq is not less than 1000 years. Compare it to the history of the USA and tell me who should teach who. I'm not supporting Saddam Hussein here, but why do you guys believe that US has every right over other nations? Why not China? They at least have the largest population on earth and if you line up all humankind and see what they vote for, I'd say China is much more important that US in deciding anything on our planet.
As for PoWs from Afghanistan in Guantanamo Bay, I don't understand why they are held in US (they are not US citizens, right?), why Bush applies US laws to them (they are not US citizens, right?) and why they are tortured (if they are treated like US citizens, are US citizens normally tortured in prisons as well?).
Firs, here is the entire quote and not some words taking out of context :
" My point was not to say that the management of these talibans where perfect : it's difficult and new solutions must be found. Actually the Bush admin do not nothing to try to solve the problem. After the war, she will have to try to resolve this problem, and to decide to the future of these people. The statu-quo situation of these people should not last forever."
As you see it did not refer at all with the Iraqi pows, but with the Talibans in guantanamo bay. And it's the responsability of Bush because this prisonners are in the hand of US. Anyway i am sure that china will keep them better than US for sure, we know how China is in advance in the human rights especially for their prisonners.
So the US military has a policy of specifically and purposely targetting civilians, who hold no military role?
I wouldn't call it a policy, but the US Military has certainly targeted civilian areas and therefore civilians. Now how about this the terrorists blow up an army barracks, that's not a civilian target, are they still terrorists? Kind of a complicated issue.
Originally posted by trick fall
I wouldn't call it a policy, but the US Military has certainly targeted civilian areas and therefore civilians. Now how about this the terrorists blow up an army barracks, that's not a civilian target, are they still terrorists? Kind of a complicated issue.
Christ! We need new buzzwords!! All these new situations are begging for a huge marketing drive. The copywriters at Saatchi & Saatchi, TBWA/Chiat/Day and BBDO are going to be kept busy for years to come!