Only when they're speaking English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Printable View
Only when they're speaking English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Within the bounds of your Laws and Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You guys got more upset about him trying to force you to have health insurance than his extra-judicial murder of a foreign national in an allied nation.
Do you seriously expect for someone here to be upset over Osama's death? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No, but the ramifications are unpleasant especially when you have a system of law which enshrines precedent so strongly. It's actually not OBL's death you should be worried about, in the sense that this sort of thing probably is par for the course only usually you are not told about it. Rather you should worry about the precedent of bombing US citizens in Yemen, the PATRIOT act and so on.
If those aforementioned citizens openly declare war on America and openly join the enemy, to hell with them. This isn't even a morally grey area imho: send a hellfire in their direction and move on to the next target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
this imho is nothing but crying wolf at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I love the comment the average Joe won't get tortured.
No country in the history of countries has ever said it was torturing people who were not toattly public enemy #1 and a grave threat.
Thse arguments simply aren't very convincing. So far we have Osama -- dead, Awlaki -- dead. Those are good things in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I would argue about the always part. Either way, if those laws become a liability, we'll repeal them. If we decide that the president's job description allows allows him to do too much, we'll change it. That's the beauty of democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I'm a conservative, yes, but that doesn't make me a republican. The fact that I'll be voting for Obama should be a clear indication that I'm in no way partisan in my views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Precedence & Reciprocity. Other belligerents can act in kind and that is not something you can change by changing the rules again. This is not the Americas Cup where you can change the rules and the competitors must abide.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It's also not just about conflicts you are a belligerent in. Your actions have set a new low benchmark for the US which effects leverage in a whole range of diplomatic encounters. It so means other nation states can chose to deal with their dissidents and enemies in the same manner.
US diplomatic leverage has been watered down. How can the US stop Russia, China or any other nation from executing without trials? All they have to say is that the people killed where believed to be terrorists any bystanders or innocents are merely collateral damage.
If an American now incites the murder a foreign national that foreign nation can legitimately order the assassination without trial of that American. That is reciprocity in action.
Well, they aren't really good because they were murdered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?
Executive power naturally expands, especially in a democracy where people keep demanding the government "do" something.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Ergo Patrio Act = Bad.
Reciprocity it's like a wheel you know. Just remember that your standards state people are guilty until proven innocent. If we don't need a court of law to prove that a terrorist is or is not in fact Joe Average, we don't need a court of law to rubber stamp any other facts or rumours.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Just remember these aren't my standards these are yours applied across the board.
That's your opinion. Decision on whether on not we should keep it is ours. If people are sufficiently pissed off by a law, any law, they will change it. If it stays, then it's not sufficiently bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Dead, of course. Dead, dead, dead.Quote:
Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?
Is this pre 9/11 OBL or post 9/11?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It won't be repealed before the Revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Why?Quote:
Dead, of course. Dead, dead, dead.
Post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The latter, assuming this is him surrendering peacefully or self-exile away from it all and preaching that he was wrong and peace is the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Sure it will. If we could repeal The Prohibition, we can repeal anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
He killed 3000 innocent people.Quote:
Why?
So... assassinating one of your former heroes is better than having him turn back into your fold, urging whoever is against you to lay down their cause and weapons?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Quite the fan of punishment, aren't you?
Dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
A fan of justice, and in this case punishment as an extension of justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
But don't you just LOVE IT when justice is punishing?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Nevermind results, :cheerleader: PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH :cheerleader:
Except this isn't a domestic law. It was international action. So you can't easily repeal it anymore unless you can revert the damage. As we can't raise the dead I cannot see how other State Actors can be made to not play the same game.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It is now a legitimate act of statehood to assassinate be it drone or radiation. There is no court requirement or innocent until proven guilty.
China and Russia can legitimately poison a dissdent or bomb a house. No need for a court of law to get involved as long as Putin signs off on it that is fine.
New game, new rules. Genie is out of the bottle.
If you really want a do over that would be nigh on impossible. It would require stopping the assassinations internally, a show of contrition, a very real need to prosecute those in the wrong and after all that international treaties with other nations to put this behind us all.
Until that point any regieme can use this new rule set.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
But I don't think RVG gets it.
Why would we want to revert that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
And I applaud it. We're not gonna drag every single enemy of the United States to court. They do not deserve that luxury.Quote:
It is now a legitimate act of statehood to assassinate be it drone or radiation. There is no court requirement or innocent until proven guilty.
We do not do that.Quote:
China and Russia can legitimately poison a dissdent or bomb a house. No need for a court of law to get involved as long as Putin signs off on it that is fine.
About time.Quote:
New game, new rules. Genie is out of the bottle.
I have no desire to see this end. In fact, the more of these people we kill, the better. International law gives me zero pause. Zero. I do not care. It is the duty of our government to strike at its enemies wherever and whenever feasible in order to protect our people and our interests. I wish I could convey just how little I care about what the world thinks of this. I wish.Quote:
If you really want a do over that would be nigh on impossible. It would require stopping the assassinations internally, a show of contrition, a very real need to prosecute those in the wrong and after all that international treaties with other nations to put this behind us all. Until that point any regieme can use this new rule set.
As for the USA turning into a police state and using these methods internally, it is my firm belief that Democracy is a self-correcting system. If the system goes too far, the people will change it. The power is vested with us.
It is first about us, then everyone else. We're not a charity, our interests come first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Sure we can. We do not oppress our own people.Quote:
No longer can we point at countries like China and Russia when they do things that are obviously authoritarian. We don't have a leg to stand on.
Let them think whatever they like.Quote:
As far as the rest of the world is considered, we're just another big angry empire. :rtwno:
Laws get passed, amended and repealed every day. If the people decide that the laws are oppressive, they will change them. If the courts decide that the executive branch is abusing power, we will punish it.Quote:
And you're whole democracy being self-correcting thing... Care to explain a little more? The only way to self-correct for this is armed insurrection, and Americans just aren't ready for the realities of what that would mean.
If destroying evil is wrong, then I quite frankly do not wanna be right.Quote:
Thankfully, like Rome before us, its good to be on the winning side. But don't kid yourself into thinking this is all about freedom and shit.
wow...
I think that what RVG fails to see, is that he takes civilization back quite some.
Some of the steps that I am most proud of that humanity has taken, he defends trampling on for some ill-conceived furthering of his nation.
I don't get how he thinks, I'm not sure I even WANT to understand how he thinks.
To each their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
These guys get it, because they read the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You two don't - look up "Martin McGuinness" and "Gerry Adams", then look up "Northern Ireland Peace Process"Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
This ain't Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Get what? I would rather see him dead rather than pretending to sing americas tune. What's there to get?Quote:
You two don't - look up "Martin McGuinness" and "Gerry Adams", then look up "Northern Ireland Peace Process"
Or even more interestingly... Where would Gerry Adams be today, had he commandeered a group of IRA guys to hijack a jet and ram it into the Houses or Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Then you will never solve half the problems you trying to end with drone's and whatever else yer building in groom lakeQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Then ye have never heard of these then
Brighton hotel bombing
Downing Street mortar attack
only pure luck meant the governments of the day were not decapitated.
Basically your answer is Gerry and the lads would still be running things in the North and the UK and Irish government would still have signed the Good Friday Agreement.
The Middle East is hardly different.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Think strategically, and who said anything about it being fake anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
ExactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If Paisley and McGuinness can sit across from each other and hammer out a deal then pretty much ANYONE can.
Yup, that's totally the same scale as 9/11. And successful too!.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
9/11 only worked because it was novel, it hasn't worked since - and they got the idea from American Tom Clancy anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I have a name for you: Mountbatton
If HM Queen can shake McGuinness' hand, let alone be in the same room as him, then the American government can get behind peace in the Middle East.
Hmm so an an act of terrorism needs to be successful in order to evoke terror, despite all the fight them on the beech's rhetoric at the end they did a deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
They british in short had to sit down hold and sign on the dotted line, later everyone wonders what all the fuss was about.
The British have been trying to stop attacks on there homeland since the 19th century and they have failed until they talked
What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It's actually Battenberg.Quote:
I have a name for you: Mountbatton
Get behind peace? Sure. We're already doing that. Letting Osama breathe my air? Hell no.Quote:
If HM Queen can shake McGuinness' hand, let alone be in the same room as him, then the American government can get behind peace in the Middle East.
Actually it's you that has no point RVG the terrorists only need to be lucky once but you need to be lucky all the time. Sure if you can manage it try and bring them to justice but what then?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No he is right, they just changed it cos a Germanic sounding name might not be popular.Quote:
It's actually Battenberg.
Sometimes you have to, people are seriously talking about bringing the Taliban into government.Quote:
Get behind peace? Sure. We're already doing that. Letting Osama breathe my air? Hell no.
Oh, I sure do. My point is that Osama is dead and I like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
It was Mountbatten though. Not -batton. If you want to impress me with a dynastic last name, at least care to spell it right (well, not you, him).Quote:
No he is right they just changed it cos a Germanic sounding name might not be popular
And sometimes you don't. I like the "wooing" produced by the hellfire missile. It's more flashy, delivers a stronger message.Quote:
Sometimes you have to, people are seriously talking about wooing into government.
Point taken on the strategic part but I was thinking about it personally; considering what I know: that he did it and was for years unrepentant, all signs point to fake, if he was genuine the only person who could be made to believe it would be himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If I saw him wearing the american flag with a peace sign I might be glad he was destabalizing his side but I would not ever be able to believe it to be genuine, so I'd still want him dead.
I talking broader than that RVG and your are well aware of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Actually your the one bringing up the minutiae on last names trying to win the internet, basically he was blew sky high and the Queen still had to shake McGuinnessQuote:
It was Montbatten though. Not -batton. If you want to impress me with a dynastic last name, at least care to spell it right (well, not you, him).
The message you talking about is for a domestic audience, it does little to prevent terrorism.Quote:
And sometimes you don't. I like the "wooing" produced by the hellfire missile. It's more flashy, delivers a stronger message.
By the way your engaging in a zero sum game which is the surest path to disaster in foreign policy, remember your only supposed to have permanent interests thats how you know when you can talk.
The main question is what kind of world you all want to live in.
A "might is right" world, or a world accepting some common principles.
I for one prefer to live in a world where you need a trial to be sentenced, and where you wont get tortured.
RVG seem to defend a "might is right" world, where you don't need a trial for anything up to and including murdering someone, and where torture is ok.
For me, I find anyone opposing these basic principles to be the scum of humanity. But that's just me.
You can't kill an idea by killing people, that's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
And I'm not. The whole point of discussion in this entire thread is about whether or not it's okay to torture and kill really-really bad guys. That's it. And yes, it's A'OK with me. If it's not okay with you, that's just fine. You can be you and I will remain me. You're offering me your moral compass, which is something I did not ask for and do not need. I have my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
I'm not out to change the world. Dealing with the problem one dead terrorist at a time is okay with me.Quote:
The message you talking about is for a domestic audience, it does little to prevent terrorism.
By the way your engaging in a zero sum game which is the surest path to disaster in foreign policy, remember your only supposed to have permanent interests thats how you know when you can talk.
You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Me I much prefer to solve a problem longterm, IF we can solve it by discussion then I am game for that, if we cannot well then that will just have to be fine too.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It might be fine with you allright but your government has more than your feelings to worry about.Quote:
I'm not out to change the world. Dealing with the problem one dead terrorist at a time is okay with me.
BTW I didnt offer any moral judgement that's your own doing, interestingly your feelings mirror your enemies.
The altar of liberty totters when it is cemented only with bloodQuote:
You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.
Bingo.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
So far my feelings are aligning with the actions of my government just fine.Quote:
It might be fine with you allright but your government has more than your feelings to worry about.
how is that working out for ye?? not too good I hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You hear wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
brilliant so the mid east is at peace them yes??Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Don't care. America is relatively secure, that's what matters to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
The Romans tried that with the Christians, for two hundred years, they tried a lot harder than you Americans are. The Roman Catholics tried with the protestants - hell everybody tried with the Jews for two millennia.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You have, I think, quite possibly said the most ignorant thing in the history of the Backroom - kudos.
Um...I wasn't advocating extermination of Muslims. Only terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Oh. Them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This is the reason why America will continue to suffer terrorism or be dragged into quagmires all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Then I guess the defense contractors have nothing to worry about. They'll stay in business. That's good news for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Just remember everyone else both allies and enemies can use that same strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Also historically the nations who did this tended to be empires. Rome and Mongolia had a kill them all approach from time to time. The last country that systematically tortured prisoners and killed them without courts of law with approval from the highest powers was Imperial Japan. They believed that their citizens were worth more then others, they believed they were in the right, they believed that enemy prisoners had no rights, that a soldier who surrended was no longer a soldier to accord human rights to. Their path of total war meant their enemies required total war and surrender.
Japanese prisoners in allied prisons still were treated as POWs. Despite all the things they had done to civilian and military personnel. Japanese still got a day in court.
Now this country that advocated killing people in sufficient numbers it ended very badly for them.
USA probably won't get a nuclear bomb. Instead it's form of MAD will be mutually assured debt. As investors review the stability of the US government from Patriot Act to torture to assassination to bickering over debt ceiling. The consequences are far more likely to be a slipping in the buying power of the US dollar, being pegged down from a AAA rating and private investors choosing safer havens.
And he final example of why it's not a good thing to try and use force to control a nation:
"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."
Just remember everyone else both allies and enemies can use that same strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Also historically the nations who did this tended to be empires. Rome and Mongolia had a kill them all approach from time to time. The last country that systematically tortured prisoners and killed them without courts of law with approval from the highest powers was Imperial Japan. They believed that their citizens were worth more then others, they believed they were in the right, they believed that enemy prisoners had no rights, that a soldier who surrended was no longer a soldier to accord human rights to. Their path of total war meant their enemies required total war and surrender.
Japanese prisoners in allied prisons still were treated as POWs. Despite all the things they had done to civilian and military personnel. Japanese still got a day in court.
Now this country that advocated killing people in sufficient numbers it ended very badly for them.
USA probably won't get a nuclear bomb. Instead it's form of MAD will be mutually assured debt. As investors review the stability of the US government from Patriot Act to torture to assassination to bickering over debt ceiling. The consequences are far more likely to be a slipping in the buying power of the US dollar, being pegged down from a AAA rating and private investors choosing safer havens.
And the final example of why it's not a good thing to try and use force to control a nation:
"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."
Napoleon just used a cannon. Canister shot is a good teacher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
What, all terrorists?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Everybody capable of conceiving of terror as a weapon?
You'll have to kill everyone.
Or just Muslim terrorists?
Well, then you'll have to kill all the Muslims, and anyone who might be a Muslim, or who can read Arabic.
Errrrr.....
That would include a lot of Jews and Christians too.
Better kill everyone, just to be sure.
As I said, you can't kill an idea.
Sure you can. You just need to pick a specific idea. In this case, it's the idea that you can attack America or our allies and get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
What those bearded guys carry in the deepest recesses of their minds is their business, it doesn't matter to me. They can think whatever they want, as long as they don't dare act.
RVG, you don't seem too fond of addressing the larger implications?
Do you want US troopers to be tortured, or handled humanely?
Depends on who's doing the torturing. If it's another nation, they won't do it, since we don't torture POWs. If it's Al Qaeda, they'll do it anyway, regardless of how we treat them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
And what if there attacking you because of that very idea, neither side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will talk so logically they can only attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
What about Hizbullah or Hamas then people talk to them all the time including Israel, waving AQ around in this discussion is like brandishing a voodoo doll.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Then you kill them. Just keep killing as they keep attacking. As long as terrorists can't be cloned, this strategy should achieve a certain level of success.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Israeli generals might differ with you there, I bet a lot of them acknowledge the need for a political settlement.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Fair enough. If Hamas or Hezbollah have their man en route to, say, NYC to detonate a bomb, and we happen to have his accomplice in custody, that accomplice will have to squeal, or he will be made to squeal. Basically, an armed conflict in imho should be limited to men in uniform killing men in uniform. If one side chooses to deliberately target civilians (especially if they are aiming for mass casualties), that debt will be repaid tenfold.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
IF the negotiations work. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
But that wont stop there grievance now will it??Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Well if they fail you can always go back to killing them, I don't see how you have anything to lose by talking.Quote:
IF the negotiations work. Right?
Why wouldn't it? The accomplice squeals, we nab the bomber, tragedy averted.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Sure, and boy have they done their share of talking. Sometimes it worked (like it did with Egypt), sometimes it didn't.Quote:
Well if they fail you can always go back to killing them, I don't see how you have anything to lose by talking.
Were talking about two differ things now RVG your in a movie and I am talking about ending conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Brilliant...Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
The conflict ends when one side loses its will to fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
I guess that's why the Afghan war has dragged out for longer than world war I and II combined then...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yes, you could say that. As long as the will remains, the fight goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
... And damn anyone seeking peace!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The last peace negotiator got a turban full of kaboom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
RVG, I must honestly say that what you write here come off as a caricature of everything the rest of the western world see as the very worst traits of US citizens at large. You just happily bundle it up in a neat little package.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I think, and hope, that you are trolling. By now even the most adamant war hawk should have started to pay attention to what pretty much everyone around him is telling.
But what scares me, is that what you write actually might be your true intention, and that You think that all of us are wrong. Do you know many people thinking the way you think?
Like I mentioned earlier in this thread: I do not care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I'm not. I do not troll.Quote:
I think, and hope, that you are trolling.
Hey, if you wish to be scared, go right ahead.Quote:
But what scares me, is that what you write actually might be your true intention, and that You think that all of us are wrong.