View Full Version : Good vs. Bad
LadyLuck
04-22-2008, 05:59 PM
CO, that was a nice piece of writing.
Indeed :yes:
I especially liked the second to last paragraph.
It struck me as a bit odd though because unless I am confusing Casual Observer with another person I thought (based on the old threads I've read through in the now closed political section)that he supported the war in Iraq.
Oh well, even if he did back then he's now got a fantastic grasp on the reality of the so called "War on Terror".
hockeybobby
04-23-2008, 12:41 PM
Hamas leader offers Israel 10 year truce.
Story here:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/04/21/carter-hamas.html
"There's no doubt that both the Arab world and Hamas will accept Israel's right to exist in peace within 1967 borders," Carter said.
Who knows if anything will come of this. Why would Carter's efforts not be worth a try though?
jester214
04-23-2008, 05:17 PM
Who knows if anything will come of this. Why would Carter's efforts not be worth a try though?
My issue with Carter is not that he's going over there. It's that I think he's going over there as if he has some kind of authority, or is some kind of representative. The man's deluded by what he's "done" in the past, and now he thinks he can do whatever he wants as long as it's in the interest of peace.
jester214
04-23-2008, 05:24 PM
What planet are you on? (CNN) -- Seventy-one percent of Iraqis responding to a new survey favor a commitment by U.S.-led forces in Iraq to withdraw in a year. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/27/iraq.poll/)
I find it "funny" that we see all these surveys telling how they want us gone, and then you see stories with Iraqi citizens saying how nice it is to be able to walk around outside. Or to have public gatherings where they can watch people ride motorcycles and not worry about the goverment coming to kill them.
The Japanese want the American military base out of Okinawa, but try bringing up the idea of America letting them take care of there own defence.
No one wants to have a foreign military prescense in there own country, they just want a normal life. But most of the time if you give them an aternative, they'll keep the foreigners.
hockeybobby
04-23-2008, 10:01 PM
My issue with Carter is not that he's going over there. It's that I think he's going over there as if he has some kind of authority, or is some kind of representative. The man's deluded by what he's "done" in the past, and now he thinks he can do whatever he wants as long as it's in the interest of peace.
I believe he's merely using his renown as an eminent person to explore alternatives. It is precisely because he is NOT there formally representing the United States, but rather just one person, that he may open normally closed doors. imo.
Melonie
04-24-2008, 12:47 AM
The Japanese want the American military base out of Okinawa, but try bringing up the idea of America letting them take care of there own defence.
Absolutely true ... especially in ex-UK western europe. Obviously most countries would prefer to avoid spending their own tax money on military defense if the US is willing to do it for them. There have been exceptions of course i.e. the Phillipines.
bem401
04-24-2008, 06:17 AM
The main issue with Carter is he has no business going over there. He speaks for no one but himself. For anyone other than a designate of the President to go over there to speak with our adversaries is actually a criminal offense. Not even active members of Congress are allowed to do that.
As to Iraq/Iran, the reason packing up and leaving and trying to negotiate then is wrong is because you cannot negotiate from a position of weakness. The reason we are even in the mess we are in is because we have been seen as a paper tiger by the terrorists. During the 90's, we responded feebly, if at all, to any attacks. The terrorists are counting on us not having the stomach to stand up to them and fight. They are expecting us to back down. To pull out as some suggest would only reinforce that. As far as how it affects our standing in the world, who cares? Who are we trying to impress? The Europeans? The communist world? The Muslims? Most other countries in the world need us a hell of a lot more than we need them. And if we are so bad, why are millions of illegals willing to risk their lives just to get in this country.
hockeybobby
04-24-2008, 06:58 AM
The main issue with Carter is he has no business going over there. He speaks for no one but himself. For anyone other than a designate of the President to go over there to speak with our adversaries is actually a criminal offense. Not even active members of Congress are allowed to do that.
Carter has made it abundantly clear he does not represent the President. With his comments about the administrations foreign policy being "the worst in history", I believe he is doing a service to the American people by seperating the President, and the people of the United States...whose views on Iraq, inter alia, are divergent.
As to Iraq/Iran, the reason packing up and leaving and trying to negotiate then is wrong is because you cannot negotiate from a position of weakness. The reason we are even in the mess we are in is because we have been seen as a paper tiger by the terrorists. During the 90's, we responded feebly, if at all, to any attacks. The terrorists are counting on us not having the stomach to stand up to them and fight. They are expecting us to back down. To pull out as some suggest would only reinforce that. As far as how it affects our standing in the world, who cares? Who are we trying to impress? The Europeans? The communist world? The Muslims? Most other countries in the world need us a hell of a lot more than we need them. And if we are so bad, why are millions of illegals willing to risk their lives just to get in this country.
Impressing your own citizenry would be a good start imo.
Jay Zeno
04-24-2008, 08:01 AM
During the 90's, we responded feebly, if at all, to any attacks.
1967 (Johnson). Israel attacks the USS Liberty, killing dozens of sailors. No response.
1968 (Johson), North Korea captures the USS Pueblo. No response.
1975 (Ford), Cambodia captures the Mayaguez. Marines took it back.
1979 (Carter), Iran takes hostages. Laughable response. Ultimately freed.
1982-1990s (mostly Reagan). Lebanon takes hostages. Deal brokered to free them involving illegal arms movement.
1983 (Reagan). Bombing of Marine Barracks in Lebanon, over 200 Marines killed. Only retaliation came from French (!) planes.
1993 (Clinton). First WTC bombing. Arrests made
2000 (Clinton, with Bush II taking over a few months later) Bombing of USS Cole. No response.
Tauries
04-24-2008, 11:18 AM
1982-1990s (mostly Reagan). Lebanon takes hostages. Deal brokered to free them involving illegal arms movement.
1983 (Reagan). Bombing of Marine Barracks in Lebanon, over 200 Marines killed. Only retaliation came from French (!) planes.
If what you wrote here is so true Jay...I wonder if you wouldn't mind explaining to the youngins on the board how Colonel Muammars Gaddafi's little adopted daughter,Hanna, met her demise?? Or how his two sons and HIS UGLY MUG got injured???? If I'm not mistaken....some lil' U.S. planes...F-111's I believe....dropped bombs on his and his families ass. I don't recall any more barracks being blown up after that. Of course I could be wrong and maybe that sacless peanut farmer Carters' on his knees "oral support" blew his mind instead.
hockeybobby
04-24-2008, 11:48 AM
If what you wrote here is so true Jay...I wonder if you wouldn't mind explaining to the youngins on the board how Colonel Muammars Gaddafi's little adopted daughter,Hanna, met her demise?? Or how his two sons and HIS UGLY MUG got injured???? If I'm not mistaken....some lil' U.S. planes...F-111's I believe....dropped bombs on his and his families ass. I don't recall any more barracks being blown up after that. Of course I could be wrong and maybe that sacless peanut farmer Carters' on his knees "oral support" blew his mind instead.
Many acts of terrorism were carried out by Libya after the bombing of his family in 1986, including the Pan Am flight #103 bombing. Normal diplomatic and United Nations sanctions were responsible for Qadhafi's change of course at the turn of the century.
Not surprising you'd hold up the murder of innocent children as a shining foreign policy success story though. You are nothing if not consistent.
jester214
04-24-2008, 12:01 PM
^^^That is not murder. And when you pratice, or allow the practice, of terrorist activities, you open yourself (and anyone around you) to retaliation.
hockeybobby
04-24-2008, 12:24 PM
^^^That is not murder. And when you pratice, or allow the practice, of terrorist activities, you open yourself (and anyone around you) to retaliation.
Terrorism/murder...whatever. It's semantics. When a lesser power sponsors, aids, and abets murder,and murderers, such as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, they are subject to a multilateral police action.
When a superpower does it, it's called what? justice?
It's just more "eye for an eye" revenge/optics bullshit.
jester214
04-24-2008, 12:27 PM
You're confusing the situation, maybe on purpose, I'm not sure.
If you practice or allow TERRORISM to be practised, it is open season on your ass. That is not murder. In the same way that killing someone in the course of battle isn't murder.
LadyLuck
04-24-2008, 12:33 PM
Terrorism/murder...whatever. It's semantics. When a lesser power sponsors, aids, and abets murder,and murderers, such as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, they are subject to a multilateral police action.
When a superpower does it, it's called what? justice?
It's just more "eye for an eye" revenge/optics bullshit.
Ok, that is it. I now officially :heartbeat you, Bobby
Jenny
04-24-2008, 12:38 PM
If you practice or allow TERRORISM to be practised, it is open season on your ass. That is not murder. In the same way that killing someone in the course of battle isn't murder.Where do you get this idea?
jester214
04-24-2008, 12:40 PM
Thousands of years of History. The reactions of Governments to Terrorism. Personal views. The fact that we didn't arrest all the soldiers that came home after WWII. Those places...
Jay Zeno
04-24-2008, 12:41 PM
If what you wrote here is so true Jay...I wonder if you wouldn't mind explaining to the youngins on the board how Colonel Muammars Gaddafi's little adopted daughter,Hanna, met her demise?? Or how his two sons and HIS UGLY MUG got injured???? If I'm not mistaken....some lil' U.S. planes...F-111's I believe....dropped bombs on his and his families ass. I don't recall any more barracks being blown up after that. Of course I could be wrong and maybe that sacless peanut farmer Carters' on his knees "oral support" blew his mind instead.Well, without all the sardonic emotionalism attached, I was referring to the retaliation carried out (or not) in Lebanon.
That was 1983. In 1986, yes, the Gulf of Sidra action happened. It was in retaliation for the bombing of a German disco that killed a couple of American soldiers and was traced back to Libyan people. Overview: Libya claimed the Gulf of Sidra as its terrotorial waters, the U.S. claimed it was open and cruised around in it, some Libyan jets were shot down, some Libyan boats sunk, the disco was bombed, Gaddafi's place got bombed, and two years later, Pan Am 101 got bombed. A few years later, under pressure, Libya paid a chunk of change to settle it.
I'm not making an argument. I was merely giving some more information to flesh out "we didn't do anything in the '90s." However, it appears that there's an argument here that if Carter does succeed in brokering a peace (something that he's done before), then he would be a terrible man for doing so.
jester214
04-24-2008, 12:44 PM
IMO, if he can do it, more power to him... I just don't like his attitude in going over there, plus I doubt he can, and I also don't give him much credit for his past "brokering"...
Jenny
04-24-2008, 12:50 PM
Thousands of years of History. The reactions of Governments to Terrorism. Personal views. The fact that we didn't arrest all the soldiers that came home after WWII. Those places...
So. Nothing in actual international law that says that a country can unilaterally declare another country to be a terrorist and declare "open season on their ass"? Just, like, your intuition?
jester214
04-24-2008, 12:54 PM
Actually country sponsored terrorism is an act of war, and thus up to the Military to take whatever response is applicable. Meaning open season on that countries ass, should it be decided.
But yeah, there is International Law to back it up.
(2) member states may use force in self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Specifically, Article 51 states
^^From the U.N. Charter
jester214
04-24-2008, 12:55 PM
International Law is so vague it doesn't commit itself to anything except "terrorism is bad".
Jenny
04-24-2008, 12:57 PM
International Law is so vague it doesn't commit itself to anything except "terrorism is bad".
So, the answer to this is... no, then? You're basing this on your intuition and not on international law?
jester214
04-24-2008, 12:58 PM
^ I just editied my post. That was just a side comment on internation law.
Jenny
04-24-2008, 01:04 PM
The U.N Charter does not support an "open season on another country's ass"; it certainly doesn't support a country unilaterally declaring another country to be a terrorist state in order to declare an "open season on their ass". Read it in it's entirety.
jester214
04-24-2008, 01:09 PM
The U.N Charter does not support an "open season on another country's ass"; it certainly doesn't support a country unilaterally declaring another country to be a terrorist state in order to declare an "open season on their ass". Read it in it's entirety.
I was being colorful, and trying to make my point.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security...."
Hmm... best defence is a good offense, so I'd say we can declare "open season on there ass"... As can any country who encounters state sponsered terrorism...
Tauries
04-24-2008, 01:21 PM
Well, without all the sardonic emotionalism attached, I was referring to the retaliation carried out (or not) in Lebanon.
That was 1983. In 1986, yes, the Gulf of Sidra action happened. It was in retaliation for the bombing of a German disco that killed a couple of American soldiers and was traced back to Libyan people. Overview: Libya claimed the Gulf of Sidra as its terrotorial waters, the U.S. claimed it was open and cruised around in it, some Libyan jets were shot down, some Libyan boats sunk, the disco was bombed, Gaddafi's place got bombed, and two years later, Pan Am 101 got bombed. A few years later, under pressure, Libya paid a chunk of change to settle it.
I'm not making an argument. I was merely giving some more information to flesh out "we didn't do anything in the '90s." However, it appears that there's an argument here that if Carter does succeed in brokering a peace (something that he's done before), then he would be a terrible man for doing so.
That "sardonic emotionalism" at least got things jumpin in the thread again...and maybe Hokey a date!! As far as Mr. "Kotter" (pardon the Sweathog humor....it's humid in the ATL today) goes, I don't personally fall for that "negotiated peace" title...I mean if he had really brokered peace we wouldn't be having this discussion. All he manages to do is buy these lunatics more time to regroup and come back better armed in the future...sounds alot like that universally loved Chamberlain guy that prevented WWII....Oh shite that didn't go as planned either....drats!!!
Jenny
04-24-2008, 01:24 PM
I was being colorful, and trying to make my point.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security...."
Hmm... best defence is a good offense, so I'd say we can declare "open season on there ass"... As can any country who encounters state sponsered terrorism...
A) The best defence is a good offence is sort of what terrorism is. I mean there is a reason we differentiate between "offensive" and "defensive". They are not considered the same thing.
B) if you are declaring this to a legitimate exercise of power to counter an act of war, what does that do to your contention that the "terrorists" can be held without deference to international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war?
jester214
04-24-2008, 01:29 PM
A) The best defence is a good offence is sort of what terrorism is. I mean there is a reason we differentiate between "offensive" and "defensive". They are not considered the same thing.
B) if you are declaring this to a legitimate exercise of power to counter an act of war, what does that do to your contention that the "terrorists" can be held without deference to international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war?
A. Defensive can mean offensive. If a country with long range missiles attacks a country without long range missiles. The only way for the 2nd country to stop the attacks and "defend" themselves would be to go to the first country "offensively".
B. You asked for specific international law to a specific circumstance. I gave it to you, it does nother to any of my other contentions.
Jay Zeno
04-24-2008, 01:32 PM
That "sardonic emotionalism" at least got things jumpin in the thread again...I disagree. It was providing a corrected timeline for your points that generated my posting.
I don't personally fall for that "negotiated peace" title...I mean if he had really brokered peace we wouldn't be having this discussion. We're not having this discussion about Egypt and Israel. That's the peace brokering I'm talking about.
He presided over stagflation, double-digit prime rates, and a demoralized military. I'll give him Camp David.
Jenny
04-24-2008, 01:33 PM
A. Defensive can mean offensive. If a country with long range missiles attacks a country without long range missiles. The only way for the 2nd country to stop the attacks and "defend" themselves would be to go to the first country "offensively".
That is not traditionally the case with the U.S. though, is it? Like, when does that happen?
B. You asked for specific international law to a specific circumstance. I gave it to you, it does nother to any of my other contentions.
Of course it does. If you are trying to fit your contentions within the rubric of the UN Charter, they have to fit into the entire rubric. You can't just pick and choose. Like "it's an act of war when we're invading, but not when we're dealing with prisoners." That's a silly approach.
jester214
04-24-2008, 01:38 PM
That is not traditionally the case with the U.S. though, is it? Like, when does that happen?
I'm a little confused to what your asking?
Of course it does. If you are trying to fit your contentions within the rubric of the UN Charter, they have to fit into the entire rubric. You can't just pick and choose. Like "it's an act of war when we're invading, but not when we're dealing with prisoners." That's a silly approach.
I told you my justifications, but then added on that there is international law to back it up, because you asked.
That's also part of the debate of the treatment of terrorists.
Personally I say screw international law when it comes to dealing with people who refuse to obey it.
Jenny
04-24-2008, 01:46 PM
I'm a little confused to what your asking?
I think you've mischaracterized "offensive" and "defensive" there.
I told you my justifications, but then added on that there is international law to back it up, because you asked.
Your international law is not backing it up. That's sort of my point.
Personally I say screw international law when it comes to dealing with people who refuse to obey it.
So we're back to your justifications? You mean that you intuitively think the US knows when it is fair and right to invade other countries? Well a lot of Americans do share that perspective; I've gotta say though, "It's different when we do it" is not generally a very convincing argument. Because after all, there is a very, very reasonable and convincing argument that the US isn't obeying international law. Or for that matter, it's own domestic law.
jester214
04-24-2008, 01:55 PM
I think you've mischaracterized "offensive" and "defensive" there.
I disagree. I beleive that, to a degree, the words are interchangeable. It's obviously debateable.
Your international law is not backing it up. That's sort of my point.
I'm not gonna keep arguing about this, the U.N. convention says directly that a country can defend themselves. I beleive that is defending themselves.
So we're back to your justifications? You mean that you intuitively think the US knows when it is fair and right to invade other countries? Well a lot of Americans do share that perspective; I've gotta say though, "It's different when we do it" is not generally a very convincing argument. Because after all, there is a very, very reasonable and convincing argument that the US isn't obeying international law. Or for that matter, it's own domestic law.
I think based on what I've read, seen America do, and seen other countries do, that we do the best we can. There's also a very reasonable and convincing argument that we are obeying international law. As to the "It's different when we do it", what are you referring to?
Casual Observer
04-24-2008, 07:51 PM
I'm not gonna keep arguing about this, the U.N. convention says directly that a country can defend themselves. I beleive that is defending themselves.
No, it's not. But you don't have to pretend.
Two types of action in this category:
--Pre-emptive offensive action, which is an offensive action taken when a nation believes an attack is imminent. This is not only legal but adheres to the notion of the Just War Theory.
--Preventative offensive action, which is an offensive action taken when a nation believes it can stop a neighbor from merely acquiring offensive capabilities. This is not legal and does not adhere to Just War Theory.
Guess which category Iraq falls into? That's a rhetorical question, of course.