Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 180
Like Tree138Likes

Thread: A question on the constitution

  1. #51
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3918
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gssixgun View Post
    I don't know the answer but we (The Western World) tend to sit way to long while people die, I don't think that is right or moral
    Well, as you found with Iraq jumping the gun can be just as bad if not worse. Fighting to win starts with knowing what you want to win and what it takes to win it. The fact is that the western world does not have the resources to take over and rule the whole world i.e. you can't stop the genocides and people die. So second best option is the United Nations - you negotiate with the others of what should be done. Compromise means that you can only do less than what you want to do, but at least it can be ensured that it gets done (cf. Iran sanctions).

    Of course that goes against that caricature of 'american exceptionalism' that is popular in some circles, but chasing one's tail is just dumb.

    For example US has not been fighting China or Saudi Arabia despite their oppressive governments which have been killing their citizens, instead it's partnered with them in the hope that over time they will improve. To claim moral superiority one has to be consistent, and have a relatively clear line when a dictatorship should be treated with cooperation and when with war.

  2. #52
    Senior Member blabbermouth
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Roseville,Kali
    Posts
    10,432
    Thanked: 2027

    Default

    Bottom line as far as I am concernd,if your going to attack a country,make a declaration of war,than get it done.
    No reason to dick around,just do it.
    scotishcavalir likes this.
    CAUTION
    Dangerous within 1 Mile

  3. #53
    Senior Member blabbermouth
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    17,307
    Thanked: 3227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gssixgun View Post
    After WW2 both Germany and Japan had Allied Occupational armies left in place... we (the Allies) also decimated their warfighting capabilities so the threat was pretty low.. By then the civilian populations were ready for the end of hostilities


    Now leaving the whole region alone is definitely an option I can get behind but somehow I do believe that TBS's scenario of defending Israel and WW3 will be the outcome and things might be too far gone after that...

    We also need to remember that simply trying to blame the US for invading Iraq like a few here are leaning on, is basically being blind to who we knocked out of power.. He was after all called the Butcher of Baghdad for a reason , he did after all invade Kuwait and also gassed over 200000 Kurds .. we should have taken him out in 1991 that was a mistake

    A convenient lapse of memory,

    Much like ISIS and Boko Harum, and many others practicing Genocide in the Dark corners of the world, I feel that is what we "The Western World" agreed to never let happen again after 1945 yet we seem to forget so much..

    Perhaps the answer is actually a International Warfighting Force / Merc's that instead of a UN peacekeeping mission, they are deployed by the UN to go in and hunt down and kill groups like ISIS and Boko then leave ???? If the UN can't handle that responsibility perhaps Nato,

    I don't know the answer but we (The Western World) tend to sit way to long while people die, I don't think that is right or moral
    I would agree if only in part..

    WWII and the occupation was done after a conventional war with a defined enemy in uniform from a defined and recognized geographical area Germany/Japan. I do not think that method is wholly applicable when you are fighting ghosts like modern terrorism.

    I don't think anyone in the west cared much what the Butcher of Baghdad did until he invaded Kuwait and tried to upset the oil cart. That is regardless of who or how many he gassed or otherwise misbehaved. No lapse of memory there on my part and I don't blame the US for invading to protect oil sources. Just call it what it was and don't fancy it up is all.

    Yes, we in the west sit back and ring our hands far too long in the face of genocide in the dark corners of the world. Not right or moral.

    NATO is for the protection of it's member states by it's charter and it may be a stretch to push that protection so far from it's members physical borders. OTH even though the main area of operation for ISIS is physically far away there have been attacks within the borders of NATO member states so it might not be that far a stretch. Hard to make that stretch for BOKO though.

    Yes, the UN could do more if it were to have a standing army of it's own made up from member nations large enough and well equipped to do serious peace keeping. No need to hire Mercs. That would take a quantum leap in world mentality on relinquishing sovereign power and special interests. I do not think most regions in the world would want to do that.

    I think getting multi national forces from the surrounding area to handle their own problems with outside support when needed and requested may be an alternative if it could be made to work. There are more than enough countries that view Boko and ISIS as a common threat to their region. Would make some pretty interesting and strange bed fellows.

    Bob
    Life is a terminal illness in the end

  4. #54
    At this point in time... gssixgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Idaho Redoubt
    Posts
    27,031
    Thanked: 13246
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The more I think about it the more I like a Mercenary force paid for by a Group of nations (yet to be defined) maybe not the UN since it is pretty non-functional...
    We are like you say fighting a non-conventional war perhaps it is time to change the dynamics and be much more reactive, with fast and decisive action against groups like this without the cumbersome mantel of statecraft...

    Sanctions and Discussions seem to only hurt the innocent citizens and lengthen the time of suffering..
    Last edited by gssixgun; 02-21-2015 at 01:19 AM.
    BobH likes this.

  5. #55
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3918
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobH View Post
    No need to hire Mercs. That would take a quantum leap in world mentality on relinquishing sovereign power and special interests. I do not think most regions in the world would want to do that.
    I know this is heretical, but there may be something in there. I mean with increased globalisation the country boundaries are becoming less meaningful. The other piece is that with growing economic disparity a country's politics is shaped more by the economic power at the top than by the large numbers at the bottom (I mean that's probably always been the case). So decreased sovereign power and increased role of the special interest doesn't strike me as all too improbable future, though getting there wouldn't be by quantum leap but gradual transition.
    I mean mercenaries used to be around in the past, but then the wars became between conscript armies, then we moved towards all volunteer army, and Iraq saw pretty dramatic outsourcing to private companies, i.e. mercenaries (it boggled my mind at the time).


    Quote Originally Posted by BobH View Post
    I think getting multi national forces from the surrounding area to handle their own problems with outside support when needed and requested may be an alternative if it could be made to work.
    I believe that's been one of the components for quite some time, just not the most prominent.

    We all hate it when innocent people die and suffer and that's the tragedy. The way I see it even as a 'collateral damage' and not 'victims' dead people are still dead. I know I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz may have genuinely believed that it will be a quick campaign where the Iraqi people greet US as liberators and rebuilding the country into a free and democratic Iraq would be simple and easy. I mean that's what they sold, but while I've never been in war I really think that's a fictionalized story of how wars work, and they should've known better.

  6. #56
    I got this . . . Orville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    847
    Thanked: 100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gssixgun View Post
    Well that is questionable...

    Are they POW's ???
    Are they Criminals ???
    Are they "Enemy Combatants" ??

    You tell me . . . but make a decision and proceed rather than just suspend your own Constitution by holding them without charge or representation


    See they blurred the line, we didn't, so the entire legal system whether Military or Civilian has been obscured...

    They didn't blur anything. US gov just ignores their own laws.

    Terrorists now are being classified more as Criminals especially those that are home grown.. It is a complicated question that personally I believe should be settled much like we did after WW2 with a Multi-National Tribunal

    It's only complicated if you are deliberately trying to AVOID making a decision as to the disposition of these people.

    Only countries that have suffered a Terrorist attack should sit on the panel and the legal status of any prisoners should be once and for all be decided...

    Basically an International set of rules for Terrorists/Mercenaries that work outside of a Country's Uniform we managed to work out the Geneva Conventions of War this should be a seperate part of it


    ps: I am not positive but the way I understand the International Laws now they can actually be executed as Spies/Subversives as Non-Uniformed Combatants, will have to research that for accuracy.. But I don't think they actually have any rights if they are not uniformed POW's..
    EVERYBODY has Rights . . . as to trying them as Spies/Subversives, I would be fine with that, but MAKE A DECISION !!! That is the extent of my objection. Your Government needs to follow it's Laws, rather than enact some BS Presidential edict allowing them to do whatever the hell they want to.

  7. #57
    Senior Member blabbermouth Hirlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    13,530
    Thanked: 3530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orville View Post
    EVERYBODY has Rights . . . as to trying them as Spies/Subversives, I would be fine with that, but MAKE A DECISION !!! That is the extent of my objection. Your Government needs to follow it's Laws, rather than enact some BS Presidential edict allowing them to do whatever the hell they want to.
    When you behead innocents for sport & burn humans alive, you forfeit all rights you have. So not everybody has rights my friend.

  8. #58
    Senior Member blabbermouth
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    17,307
    Thanked: 3227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gugi View Post

    We all hate it when innocent people die and suffer and that's the tragedy. The way I see it even as a 'collateral damage' and not 'victims' dead people are still dead. I know I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz may have genuinely believed that it will be a quick campaign where the Iraqi people greet US as liberators and rebuilding the country into a free and democratic Iraq would be simple and easy. I mean that's what they sold, but while I've never been in war I really think that's a fictionalized story of how wars work, and they should've known better.
    Call me a cynic but I believe they did know better. When a decision is made to invade a foreign country there are usually two reasons to do so. They are the real one and the window dressing that sells the deal to the public. It is an added bonus if you can build a coalition of other like minded countries to go along as it adds an air of legitimacy to the venture. You really can't take much at face value.

    Bob
    Life is a terminal illness in the end

  9. #59
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3918
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hirlau View Post
    When you behead innocents for sport & burn humans alive, you forfeit all rights you have. So not everybody has rights my friend.
    Yeah, but in historical timescale that's a comparatively recent worldview. One of the most celebrated cases in the history of free thought is of a guy named Giordano Bruno - he was burned alive in 1600 and as recently as 2000 the position of the Roman Church was that while it was 'sad episode' the inquisitors 'had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life.'

    We didn't get here by killing off all the bloodthirsty 'do gooders' among our ancestors, we changed by overtime starting to value the lives of our fellow humans over the differences we have with them.

  10. #60
    At this point in time... gssixgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Idaho Redoubt
    Posts
    27,031
    Thanked: 13246
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orville View Post
    EVERYBODY has Rights . . . as to trying them as Spies/Subversives, I would be fine with that, but MAKE A DECISION !!! That is the extent of my objection. Your Government needs to follow it's Laws, rather than enact some BS Presidential edict allowing them to do whatever the hell they want to.

    No not really, not only our laws apply here...

    I was doing some reading about the Geneva Conventions, and honestly you have two distinctions Combatant and Civilian there is some wording in there about Non-Uniformed Combatant but the real telling line is that "If you fight at night and become a civilian in the day " you basically fall into a Limbo status when captured and can be Executed / Held without a Trial..

    They are pretty harsh about endangering Civilians by confusing the opposing army and putting non-combatants in danger that is a big no no...
    Basically by fighting as a terrorist and hiding among the Civilian population you give up your rights to any protections under the laws because you are endangering Non- Combatants.. So regardless of what anyone "Thinks" is right, by International Law it seems as though if you are captured on the Battlefield without a uniform you are without rights...

    To be sure it seems that the entire section is a little grey, but that whole deal about endangering Civilians is pretty clear...

    I can also understand why most people would not want to stand and fight against the US Military (and Allies) toe to toe, that is basically suicide.. so wearing a uniform is tantamount to wearing a big target... That however does not change the laws


    The only argument here is that they do not abide by the Geneva Convention, but on that note we knew that when they attacked on 9/11 ... so the way I am reading it the only "Rights" they have are the ones we choose to give them...

    ps; Keep in mind that we released all the Iraqi army regulars that we captured as soon as Hostilities ended

    pss: reading a bit more about the only thing they are protected from is Torture like what was discovered at Abu Ghraib
    Last edited by gssixgun; 02-21-2015 at 05:18 AM.

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •