The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

"DRS" wrote in message news:UNidnVWBibNWcl
...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal
but the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the
illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during
his 30 year reign as Iraq's president.

The first 20 years he was aided and supported by the USA.

Without either agreeing or disagreeing with this, what has it got to do with
the discussion at hand?

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Walter Banks" wrote in message news:4AC4F93B.AA
...


Bill Graham wrote:

Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars
where armies
had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took up
arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of
terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the
conventional
rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No
uniforms,
isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands of
people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of
conduct
that are cut and dried.

Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but
200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History
before that brought
the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors.

w.
.
So we need new rules of acceptable conduct.
You got them in 2008

And my question is, are the UN rules, and the Geneva Convention rules,
applicable to fighting off these kinds of terrorist actions?
Yes... They were for the last 40 years in Norther Ireland.

And, if not, then what are we to do before new rules are established,
and who will establish them?

They have been well defined and used by many armies. It has just takne
the US military a LONG time to realise it's mistakes.

Personally, I don't see any way out right now,
Well the US has dug a bloody big hole for itself/

but for us to establish our own rules as we go.
Then you LOOSE and loose big time. The rules are already there the US
military has to adapt to them,


And this means attacking other rogue countries such as Iran and North
Korea as necessary to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons and
selling/giving them to terrorists. If there is some other way to
prevent this, I am all ears.....

The main rogue state as seen by most of the world is the USA.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message 200910011258549530-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

"DRS" wrote in message news:UNidnVWBib
...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal
but the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.
The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question
the illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's
during his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies
eliminating him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of
legality/illegality. Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed
four million. At what point would you consider it mandatory that the
other heads of state in this world become justified in killing him?
Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef
Stalin? Should we just turn out backs on anything, and not ever kill
anybody, no matter what they do? And, in any case, how can you dismiss
the whole argument with a half dozen words?

IIRC we did not kill Hitler (unless you know something we haven't been
told.)
Tojo, we dropped through a floor with a safety rope around his neck,
but Hirohito got a pass, you might say Tojo took the fall for him.

...and Stalin was on our side. We accepted him as an ally with full
knowledge of his butchery.

And Saddam was the US's man for the first 20 years for the 30.

And Al-qeada & Taliban were originally trained and funded by the USA (to
fight the legitimate government in Afghanestan)

It is impossible to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion with you,
Chris, because you insist on using it to push your own propaganda line.
(that everything the US has ever done was evil) Is it at all possible for
you to disavow your distorted idea of history, consider a present situation,
and make some sort of an intelligent decision as to what you believe the
best possible solution to the problem would be? Or, is it your position that
because of what you believe has happened in the past, there can be no
possible solution to any present problem by anyone concerned? IOW, since (in
your estimation) all present problems were caused by the United States,
there is nothing the US can possibly do right now to make anything at all
better in the future. Therefore, (in your opinion) all Americans should
commit Hari-Kari so the world's problems can be solved by others. (Such as
Chris.) And, if this is indeed your position, just what would you do to make
things better?

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Walter Banks" wrote in message news:4AC4F93B.AA
...


Bill Graham wrote:

Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars
where armies
had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took
up
arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of
terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the
conventional
rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No
uniforms,
isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands
of
people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of
conduct
that are cut and dried.

Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but
200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History
before that brought
the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors.

w.
.
So we need new rules of acceptable conduct.
You got them in 2008

And my question is, are the UN rules, and the Geneva Convention rules,
applicable to fighting off these kinds of terrorist actions?
Yes... They were for the last 40 years in Norther Ireland.

And, if not, then what are we to do before new rules are established,
and who will establish them?

They have been well defined and used by many armies. It has just takne
the US military a LONG time to realise it's mistakes.

Personally, I don't see any way out right now,
Well the US has dug a bloody big hole for itself/

but for us to establish our own rules as we go.
Then you LOOSE and loose big time. The rules are already there the US
military has to adapt to them,


And this means attacking other rogue countries such as Iran and North
Korea as necessary to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons and
selling/giving them to terrorists. If there is some other way to
prevent this, I am all ears.....

The main rogue state as seen by most of the world is the USA.

Without either agreeing or disagreeing with this, what has it got to do with
the discussion at hand?

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message news:O2ZlLbY0JSxKFAoG@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
In message 200910011258549530-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

"DRS" wrote in message news:UNidnVWBib
...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal
but the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.
The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question
the illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's
during his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies
eliminating him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of
legality/illegality. Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed
four million. At what point would you consider it mandatory that the
other heads of state in this world become justified in killing him?
Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef
Stalin? Should we just turn out backs on anything, and not ever kill
anybody, no matter what they do? And, in any case, how can you dismiss
the whole argument with a half dozen words?

IIRC we did not kill Hitler (unless you know something we haven't
been told.)
Tojo, we dropped through a floor with a safety rope around his neck,
but Hirohito got a pass, you might say Tojo took the fall for him.

...and Stalin was on our side. We accepted him as an ally with full
knowledge of his butchery.

And Saddam was the US's man for the first 20 years for the 30.

And Al-qeada & Taliban were originally trained and funded by the USA (to
fight the legitimate government in Afghanestan)

It is impossible to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion with
you, Chris, because you insist on using it to push your own propaganda
line.

No propaganda I was in the military at the time so I know some of it
first hand. Also the US training of Al-qeada and the Taliban is well
documented. It was even covered in SoF at the time!


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:55:18 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Walter Banks" wrote in message news:4AC4F93B.AA
...


Bill Graham wrote:

Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars
where armies
had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took up
arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of
terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the
conventional
rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No
uniforms,
isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands of
people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of
conduct
that are cut and dried.

Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but
200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History
before that brought
the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors.

w.
.
So we need new rules of acceptable conduct.
You got them in 2008

And my question is, are the UN rules, and the Geneva Convention rules,
applicable to fighting off these kinds of terrorist actions?
Yes... They were for the last 40 years in Norther Ireland.

And, if not, then what are we to do before new rules are established,
and who will establish them?

They have been well defined and used by many armies. It has just takne
the US military a LONG time to realise it's mistakes.

Personally, I don't see any way out right now,
Well the US has dug a bloody big hole for itself/

but for us to establish our own rules as we go.
Then you LOOSE and loose big time. The rules are already there the US
military has to adapt to them,


And this means attacking other rogue countries such as Iran and North
Korea as necessary to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons and
selling/giving them to terrorists. If there is some other way to
prevent this, I am all ears.....

The main rogue state as seen by most of the world is the USA.

You finally got "rogue" right. Now work on the difference between
"lose" and "loose". I thought the UK was supposed to have a decent
education system.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:51:48 +0100, Chris H wrote:

However this was fully discussed in 2001 in UK.current-events.terrorisum

Well that's sorted, then. Nothing like a bunch of know-nothing net
kooks to set us straight on "terrorisum".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2009-10-01 14:07:42 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:200910011258549530-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but
the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the
illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during
his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies
eliminating him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of
legality/illegality. Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed
four million. At what point would you consider it mandatory that the
other heads of state in this world become justified in killing him?
Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef
Stalin? Should we just turn out backs on anything, and not ever kill
anybody, no matter what they do? And, in any case, how can you dismiss
the whole argument with a half dozen words?

IIRC we did not kill Hitler (unless you know something we haven't been told.)
Tojo, we dropped through a floor with a safety rope around his neck,
but Hirohito got a pass, you might say Tojo took the fall for him.

...and Stalin was on our side. We accepted him as an ally with full
knowledge of his butchery.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

And what does any of the above have to do with the question of whether
or not we should take out a despotic head of state?

I was just commenting on your twisted take on history.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Bill Graham wrote:

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message 200910011258549530-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

And Saddam was the US's man for the first 20 years for the 30.

And Al-qeada & Taliban were originally trained and funded by the USA (to
fight the legitimate government in Afghanestan)

It is impossible to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion with
you, Chris, because you insist on using it to push your own propaganda
line.

Now undisputed historical facts are propaganda?
(Undisputed at least by any serious and rational = not extremely right
wing revisionist historians.)

You're on a one-way trip to La La land, Bill...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
. au...
There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the
legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed
resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal
but the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous.

The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question
the illegality of it.

Yes, but you make definitions up as you go along. That doesn't
count.
"Doesn't count"? What are the rules of this "game we are playing"? My
definitions come from "Webster's Dictionary of the English Language."

When you're talking about a matter of international law Webster's really
isn't that useful. You should at the very least start with a legal
dictionary. Then you should study law, in this instance international law.