OT - middle ages?

I view the Geneva convention like I view most gun laws. Criminals
don't care whats illegal so they the laws don't affect them. It's those
who abide by the laws that are affected.
Same way with the Geneva Convention. None of our advesaries have ever
followed it. Certainly not Iraq in 91 or more recently ( though you rarely
ever here about this). So once again it is only the U.S. and a few of our
allies who care enough about it to follow it or enforce it if it isn't.


"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
> guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
> surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?
>
> My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
> fighting.
>
> Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
> the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
> our troops as well.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> Looking at it the other way, tho, it's kind of hard to take the
>> moral high ground and declare the other side to be evil and
>> odious, when our leadership appears to be just as lacking in
>> moral standing as the enemy.
>
> I agree. But we were the ones that were attacked. That changes
> everything when it comes to war.

Really? We were attacked by Iraq? When? Must not have made the
evening news that day. I know, they coulda- mighta- maybe- well it's
possible they were thinking about making weapons of mass destruction 'n
such, but we invaded them. They never attacked us.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:36:14 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>let's not
>forget the heritage(s) from which they drew many of their best
>ideas...

Heritage ? A lot of it was Tom Paine, making it up on the spur of the
moment.

The sad part is that a war of liberation from a colonial king turned
into a war of independence instead. Imagine if both populations had
turned against the king instead of being set against each other. The
French revolution, without the threat of English intervention to turn
it into a police state afterwards.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

> With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
> guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
> surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

Give it some more time. I'm reading one right now, as a matter of fact.

> My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
> fighting.

You're speaking in future tense. It's already happened, but hopefully it's
being dealt with.

> Oops. Guess you were wrong on that one. Apparently they also fired AAA.
> I'm sure the American pilots take great relief in only having AAA fired at
> them instead of missiles. I'm sure they also feel that being illuminated
is
> just a really fun game. How about this? I stand outside your house and
> point a loaded M16 at your head. I don't shoot, just point it at you.
Does
> that make you feel good? Would you consider that an overtly aggressive
act?
> Don't be a stooge and start splitting hairs over whether Iraq fired
missles
> or AAA or just a few missiles or "hey, they just illuminated our planes".
> The fact is they shouldn't have been doing shit.

The fact is, the no-fly zones (which covered almost 2/3's of Iraq) were
imposed on Iraq by the US, Britain, and France, not the UN. There is no UN
Security Council resolution that sanctions the no-fly zones (in other words
the no-fly zones were illegal under international law) and the Iraqi's had
every right to defend their sovereignty by firing on aircraft invading their
airspace.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
> Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
> him do the job as he sees fit.
>
We elected a president, Dave, not a dictator. Are you saying he
has the right to ignore treaties (and, some would say, the
constitution)?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Same way with the Geneva Convention. None of our advesaries have ever
> followed it.
>
Actually, the Germans stuck to it pretty well in WWII, as did
we. Neither side was perfect, but I personally talked to German
POWs and to US GIs who'd been prisoners.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I've not seen the memos. Do they explore theoretical possibilities in
> a general way, or are they presented in the form of a legal brief,
> with appropriate citations and precedents?
>
>
Tom if you go to:

http://online.wsj.com/public/us

they have text of at least part of the memos available as a PDF
file.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 06:50:11 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>: I envy the US its constitution, and the fabled "checks and balances"
>: of its government. On the whole I prefer the UK's political system to
>: that of the USA, but your founding fathers did a damn good job on this
>: bit.
>
> Too bad the current administration is doing it's damndest to gut them.

Like the last administration with the Second Amendment, you mean?

Remember what happened on October 23, 1983? Ronald Reagan was the
President. They bombed the Marines and 240 good Marines were killed. What
did we do? Reagan, realizing defeat, pulled the remaining Marines out of the
Lebanese war. This coupled with the defeat of the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan demonstrated to the Bin Ladens of the world that a super power
can be defeated by small, committed groups.

We have send the message, directly and decisively that the US will not ever
again, cower to a terrorist or a government that gives aid to terrorists.
This is what I believe drives President Bush currently.

I will tell you that I do not condone torture or brutality as a means to
extract information from a prisoner or any other captive. I do support
doing what we can to trick, bribe, scare or intimidate them into providing
us with useful information.

I have a niece in the Navy and a nephew in the Marines in the gulf and on
the ground as I type. I pray daily for their safety. My nephew told me
that the local Iraqis are very grateful to the US for getting rid of Sadam
and his government. Its only a small faction of old government cronies and
zealots that continue to make trouble and the world press zeros in on them.
After the press leaves, the crowds break-up and go back to normal
activities.

As long as we have solders there, we should support them. If in hindsight,
it is determined this effort was wrong, we need to change our government by
using the democratic methods laid down by other that also gave their lives.

Dave




"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
> guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
> surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?
>
> My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
> fighting.
>
> Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
> the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
> our troops as well.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arguments like this are purely mental masturbation.

If the soldier/civilians involved in the exterminations had refused to
carry out orders, they would have merely earned the same for themselves.
Further, the survivors of the camps, who survived mostly because they
followed orders, are never considered as anything but victims, when they
could have, at any time, and by the complicity "logic" employed by the ivory
tower Onanists should have, stopped the slaughter, if only temporarily by
refusal or sabotage. I really enjoyed hearing a former sonderkommando, who
drug the corpses out of the "showers" condemning the civilians who "must
have known what was going on and did nothing" as guilty of genocide. As if
he had some means of plausible deniability to soothe his conscience?

Returning Ostarbeiteren and prisoners were properly rewarded by the Soviets,
as you may recall. You also may recall that FDR and Stalin browbeat
Churchill into denying asylum to any of them, even including a number of
former "whites" who had never been Soviet citizens who had been captured by
the Germans. At least your SMERSH reference would suggest that you should
know.

It's said that the victors write the History books, but too many modern
Historians seem to write as if the wrong side won.

The argument for allowing the mice to bell or judge the cat is absurd on its
face.

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> One of the Nurnberg defences was that German soldiers acted no worse
> than RAF pilots against Berlin or Dresden. This was rejected, partly
> because someone else's crime is never a defence for your own, but also
> because the Holocaust was treated as a non-military action carried out
> by soldiers, rather than a military campaign. The much-quoted defence
> that "we were only follwing orders" failed no only because there was
> seen to be an over-riding moral imperative to disobey such an order,
> but also because these orders could not _be_ valid military orders in
> an operation that had failed to be "military" within the bounds of
> military law.
>
> Some cases that weren't presented at Nurnberg (and perhaps should have
> been) involved anti-partisan actions on the Eastern front. In some
> cases these _could_ be presented as legitimate military actions, and
> it was their _manner_ that was under question, not their _purpose_
> (unlike an extermination camp, which is basically morally wrong from
> the outset). This is a much weaker legal case than for others, even
> for those similar actions in the Baltic states that were carried out
> by "civilian" "police" and were prosecuted.
>
>
> Sadly "Allied" prisoners have to be distinguished as Western Front or
> Eastern Front though. Slavs captured on the East _were_ treated
> primarily as untermensch to be abused with the worst excesses that the
> civilians endured, not as soldiers.
>
> One of the worst recent offenders against _the_Geneva_conventions_ is
> the US' actions at Guantanamo and the like. Note that the US is still
> a country with a good human rights record and a broadly fair treatment
> of other nation's civilians (there are problems, for sure, but only
> the worst of anti-US bias can really equate Iraqi prisons before and
> after the war). However as it applies to Geneva, then the US is on
> clear contravention of it, when most other nation's attrocities just
> aren't applicable to Geneva's rules.
>
> This is one of the strongest arguments for an international court of
> human rights, despite the US' objections to it. Geneva is just no
> longer enough to cover cases such as Rwanda or Srebrenica.
>
> --
> Smert' spamionam

Under international law (as if that is worth the paper it's printed on )
illumination by a targeting radar is a hostile act, like firing a shot
across the bow.

Search radar is not.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:52:07 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >You might ask the pilots who patrolled the no-fly zones while dodging
> SAMs
> > >if they were ever attacked. Is repeatedly firing missiles at our
> aircraft
> > >an act or war?
> >
> > Iraq didn't "repeatedly fire missiles at our aircraft" - they didn't
> > have them to spare. During the "no fly" phase, any Iraqi SA radar
> > that went as far as illuminating a target (and that's about as far as
> > they got) found itself attacked.
> >
> > --
> > Smert' spamionam
>
> Oops. Guess you were wrong on that one. Apparently they also fired AAA.
> I'm sure the American pilots take great relief in only having AAA fired at
> them instead of missiles. I'm sure they also feel that being illuminated
is
> just a really fun game. How about this? I stand outside your house and
> point a loaded M16 at your head. I don't shoot, just point it at you.
Does
> that make you feel good? Would you consider that an overtly aggressive
act?
> Don't be a stooge and start splitting hairs over whether Iraq fired
missles
> or AAA or just a few missiles or "hey, they just illuminated our planes".
> The fact is they shouldn't have been doing shit.
>
> todd
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
>guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
>surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

Frankly, I'm appalled, and I wish the President would promptly and publicly
repudiate those memos and dismiss the people that wrote them.
>
>My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're fighting.

I agree.
>
>Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
>the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
>our troops as well.
>
Yep.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Same way with the Geneva Convention. None of our advesaries have ever
> > followed it.
> >
> Actually, the Germans stuck to it pretty well in WWII, as did
> we. Neither side was perfect, but I personally talked to German
> POWs and to US GIs who'd been prisoners.


Do you think the Jews would agree with that statement?

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You can't win here, Leon ... but you can at the polls, where it counts.
Just
> make damn sure you do.



I know... In Know...

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:38:57 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:52:07 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You might ask the pilots who patrolled the no-fly zones while dodging
>>SAMs if they were ever attacked. Is repeatedly firing missiles at our
>>aircraft an act or war?
>
> Iraq didn't "repeatedly fire missiles at our aircraft" - they didn't have
> them to spare. During the "no fly" phase, any Iraqi SA radar that went
> as far as illuminating a target (and that's about as far as they got)
> found itself attacked.

Iraq shot at US and British aircraft in the no fly zones mostly with AAA,
but there most certainly were SA missiles fired also:

http://fas.org/news/iraq/1999/02/
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/25/iraq.attack/

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:29:53 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Do you think the Jews would agree with that statement?

Jewish civilians weren't protected by the Geneva conventions.
Attrocities like that were such an aberration at the time of drafting
that they're simply outside the scope of Geneva.

One of the Nurnberg defences was that German soldiers acted no worse
than RAF pilots against Berlin or Dresden. This was rejected, partly
because someone else's crime is never a defence for your own, but also
because the Holocaust was treated as a non-military action carried out
by soldiers, rather than a military campaign. The much-quoted defence
that "we were only follwing orders" failed no only because there was
seen to be an over-riding moral imperative to disobey such an order,
but also because these orders could not _be_ valid military orders in
an operation that had failed to be "military" within the bounds of
military law.

Some cases that weren't presented at Nurnberg (and perhaps should have
been) involved anti-partisan actions on the Eastern front. In some
cases these _could_ be presented as legitimate military actions, and
it was their _manner_ that was under question, not their _purpose_
(unlike an extermination camp, which is basically morally wrong from
the outset). This is a much weaker legal case than for others, even
for those similar actions in the Baltic states that were carried out
by "civilian" "police" and were prosecuted.

There were also cases where western allied Jewish soldiers and airmen
were captured. They were generally (except for a few rare cases)
treated reasonably well as POWs and were not given the special
treatment they might have expected as occupied civilians on the basis
of religion. This was generally true for Luftwaffe prisoners, as the
Luftwaffe resented any intervention from other groups, mainly for
reasons of internal management poolitics. It was broadly true for army
prisoners too, although it's known to have broken down somewhat when
POWs found themselves under the forced labour organisations towards
the end of the war.

Sadly "Allied" prisoners have to be distinguished as Western Front or
Eastern Front though. Slavs captured on the East _were_ treated
primarily as untermensch to be abused with the worst excesses that the
civilians endured, not as soldiers.

One of the worst recent offenders against _the_Geneva_conventions_ is
the US' actions at Guantanamo and the like. Note that the US is still
a country with a good human rights record and a broadly fair treatment
of other nation's civilians (there are problems, for sure, but only
the worst of anti-US bias can really equate Iraqi prisons before and
after the war). However as it applies to Geneva, then the US is on
clear contravention of it, when most other nation's attrocities just
aren't applicable to Geneva's rules.

This is one of the strongest arguments for an international court of
human rights, despite the US' objections to it. Geneva is just no
longer enough to cover cases such as Rwanda or Srebrenica.

--
Smert' spamionam

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> So uh,,, you believe that Iraq was totally inocent, had nothing to do
> with, did not help in any way, those that attacked us. The attempted
> assignation on Bush Sr. does not count?
> I guess I look at all things in general and come up with the obvious.

Yes, I believe there is no proof that Iraq provided any aid at all to
the 9/11 attackers. Do you have any proof to the contrary?

The attempt on Bush Sr was 1993. We already bombed the Iraqis in
retaliation for that. See
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02. Seems a
bit like ancient history, doesn't it?

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I use tha analogy that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells
> like a duck, it must be a duck. Not everything in this world appears as
> black and white. Some times you have to rely on life experiences to make
> your decisions. Iraq had its chance to avoid problems and it chose to
> ignore that chance.

I agree that not everything is black and white. But faulty logic like
yours is pretty obvious to spot. The fact is that our stated reasons
for going to war were bogus. Our intelligence on Iraq was all screwed
up. We have a bunch of guys running the government who think that
pretty much everything "looks like a duck."

> > The attempt on Bush Sr was 1993. We already bombed the Iraqis in
> > retaliation for that.
>
> And still this mess lingers because we did not do then what we are doing
> now.

I must have missed the part of Bush's election campaign where he
promised he would invade Iraq for what happened in 1993. If he had
really told the people that was his plan, somehow I don't think he
would be President now.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:16:27 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
>guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
>surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?
>
>My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
>fighting.
>
>Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
>the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
>our troops as well.


I've not seen the memos. Do they explore theoretical possibilities in
a general way, or are they presented in the form of a legal brief,
with appropriate citations and precedents?

Do they advocate a course of action, or do they describe the limits of
allowable actions?

Do the memos address the concerns of dealing with legally defined
combatants, or are they broader and take into consideration those who
may be thought of as illegal combatants?






Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"Leon" wrote in message

> "Scott Cramer" wrote in message

> > Really? We were attacked by Iraq? When? Must not have made the
> > evening news that day. I know, they coulda- mighta- maybe- well it's
> > possible they were thinking about making weapons of mass destruction 'n
> > such, but we invaded them. They never attacked us.
>
> So uh,,, you believe that Iraq was totally inocent, had nothing to do
> with, did not help in any way, those that attacked us. The attempted
> assignation on Bush Sr. does not count?
> I guess I look at all things in general and come up with the obvious.

You can't win here, Leon ... but you can at the polls, where it counts. Just
make damn sure you do.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04

"Scott Cramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> Really? We were attacked by Iraq? When? Must not have made the
> evening news that day. I know, they coulda- mighta- maybe- well it's
> possible they were thinking about making weapons of mass destruction 'n
> such, but we invaded them. They never attacked us.

So uh,,, you believe that Iraq was totally inocent, had nothing to do
with, did not help in any way, those that attacked us. The attempted
assignation on Bush Sr. does not count?
I guess I look at all things in general and come up with the obvious.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

> No, how about holding him to the standards of the Constitution ?
> There are limits, even for a president.

Despite all you read/hear, don't suppose for a second that both the
legistlative and judicial branches will NOT see to that, particularly
considering the current political climate.

> I envy the US its constitution, and the fabled "checks and balances"
> of its government. On the whole I prefer the UK's political system to
> that of the USA, but your founding fathers did a damn good job on this
> bit.

We think so also ... and many thanks to you POME's. ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
> > Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
> > him do the job as he sees fit.
> >
> We elected a president, Dave, not a dictator. Are you saying he
> has the right to ignore treaties (and, some would say, the
> constitution)?

Some might say ignoring the constitution,,,, but the Democrats would be all
over that if that were true.

"Scott Cramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >> Looking at it the other way, tho, it's kind of hard to take the
> >> moral high ground and declare the other side to be evil and
> >> odious, when our leadership appears to be just as lacking in
> >> moral standing as the enemy.
> >
> > I agree. But we were the ones that were attacked. That changes
> > everything when it comes to war.
>
> Really? We were attacked by Iraq? When? Must not have made the
> evening news that day. I know, they coulda- mighta- maybe- well it's
> possible they were thinking about making weapons of mass destruction 'n
> such, but we invaded them. They never attacked us.

You might ask the pilots who patrolled the no-fly zones while dodging SAMs
if they were ever attacked. Is repeatedly firing missiles at our aircraft
an act or war?

todd

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:29:53 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:


You missed the point. War is war and no one sticks to the rules.

"Henry E Schaffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> From Merriam-Webster: 2 : an appointment of time and place for a
> meeting; especially : TRYST <returned from an assignation with his
> mistress -- W. B. Yeats>
> --
> --henry schaffer
> hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu


I spose my spell checker made the best of the way I spelled "end his life".
;~)

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:52:07 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You might ask the pilots who patrolled the no-fly zones while dodging
SAMs
> >if they were ever attacked. Is repeatedly firing missiles at our
aircraft
> >an act or war?
>
> Iraq didn't "repeatedly fire missiles at our aircraft" - they didn't
> have them to spare. During the "no fly" phase, any Iraqi SA radar
> that went as far as illuminating a target (and that's about as far as
> they got) found itself attacked.
>
> --
> Smert' spamionam

Oops. Guess you were wrong on that one. Apparently they also fired AAA.
I'm sure the American pilots take great relief in only having AAA fired at
them instead of missiles. I'm sure they also feel that being illuminated is
just a really fun game. How about this? I stand outside your house and
point a loaded M16 at your head. I don't shoot, just point it at you. Does
that make you feel good? Would you consider that an overtly aggressive act?
Don't be a stooge and start splitting hairs over whether Iraq fired missles
or AAA or just a few missiles or "hey, they just illuminated our planes".
The fact is they shouldn't have been doing shit.

todd

just to add; when YOU get elected, you can do things YOUR
way, Dougie.

dave

Bay Area Dave wrote:

> It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and Harry, to
> decide what's right. Since he was elected, let him do the job as he
> sees fit.
>
> dave
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm guilty
>>> too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos surfacing that
>>> say the president can authorize torture?
>>
>>
>>
>> Frankly, I'm appalled, and I wish the President would promptly and
>> publicly repudiate those memos and dismiss the people that wrote them.
>>
>>> My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're fighting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>> Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because the
>>> Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for our
>>> troops as well.
>>>
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
>> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>>
>>
>

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I agree with your entire statement. There are too many
> folks eager to armchair quarterback every presidential move.
>
> What galls me the most though, is the lack of unity we
> display to the rest of the world. Some of the politicians
> act more like traitors than public servants, IMHO. I get
> disgusted with the likes of Kennedy. He should stick to
> something he does best; drinking.
>


Yeah.... While the jokes about our politicians are funny, and I like Leno
as much as the next guy, this, "free speech" does not send the right
message. Who of any intelligence would want the job with all the ridicule.
If we treat them with respect we might get some talent in there.

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There's too much wiggle room in that statement - at least for my
> comfort. It doesn't bother me that he has considerable latitude
> in the performance of his job; but an important part of that job
> is to preserve and protect the Constitution.

Totally agree.

Fortunately, if Bush was not doing this the Democrats would be the first to
start the impeachment proceedings like the Republicans did with Clinton.
;~)

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
> Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
> him do the job as he sees fit.

I am going to stand squarely beside you on this one Dave. Imagine how
much could be accomplished by our government if it was not always at war
with itself. Republicans against the Democrats. Democrats against
Republicans. To hell with what is right or good for the people as long as
one party wins over the other party. I blows me away that both parties
think that we cannot see this all this crap for what it really is, school
yard bickering. If the government had to make a profit all this BS would
come to a screeching halt. We have lost a great leader and my deepest
respect and sympathy goes to the Ragan family. Why does it take something
like this for the two parties to work cooperatively together?

But back to the point your were making, if we the people would give the
president, "any of our presidents" respect and work with him and not fight
him tooth and nail all the way because he is not a member of the correct
party, things would be a lot better. If he screws up, we replace him like
we did with Carter and how we would have done with Nixon had he pulled that
crap in his first term and had he not decided to resign. I think we as
Americans have learned to bitch too much and not do anything to help solve
the problems.

hmm...my newsreader doesn't have Larry's post in this thread
that you have quoted, Leon.

to Larry: The president is elected for four years under the
premise that if we do OUR job to elect the best person for
that top job, he will carry out his oath of office, which to
my recollection, mentions nothing of taking the pulse of the
man on the street, before acting in accordance with his best
judgment and those advisors that he has hand picked to make
his tenure in office as successful as possible. To act only
to appease the public would create havoc. The public is
swayed by the liberal media and really has no business
trying to run the country by demonstrating in the streets or
calling in to talk shows, or writing their petty complaints
to their local newspaper. The voters can make an adjustment
at the next election.

dave

Leon wrote:

> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>
>>>It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
>>>Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
>>>him do the job as he sees fit.
>>>
>>
>>We elected a president, Dave, not a dictator. Are you saying he
>>has the right to ignore treaties (and, some would say, the
>>constitution)?
>
>
> Some might say ignoring the constitution,,,, but the Democrats would be all
> over that if that were true.
>
>

"John McCoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:e50yc.3938$x%[email protected]:
>
> Looking at it the other way, tho, it's kind of hard to take the
> moral high ground and declare the other side to be evil and
> odious, when our leadership appears to be just as lacking in
> moral standing as the enemy.

I agree. But we were the ones that were attacked. That changes everything
when it comes to war. We really do not want to loose the war. I personally
would rather not have Bin Laudens dream come true. Remember the old saying,
all is fair in love and war.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
> guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
> surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?
>
> My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
> fighting.
>
> Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
> the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
> our troops as well.

These are some of the Republican family values that I read about.
j4

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
> guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
> surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

Why dont you go to an APPROPRIATE Newsgroup and ask
R

It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
him do the job as he sees fit.

dave

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
>>guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
>>surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?
>
>
> Frankly, I'm appalled, and I wish the President would promptly and publicly
> repudiate those memos and dismiss the people that wrote them.
>
>>My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're fighting.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>>Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
>>the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
>>our troops as well.
>>
>
> Yep.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:e50yc.3938$x%[email protected]:

> In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does
> not abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them
> selves. They thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but
> not abide by the Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.

Looking at it the other way, tho, it's kind of hard to take the
moral high ground and declare the other side to be evil and
odious, when our leadership appears to be just as lacking in
moral standing as the enemy.

Most of us would prefer to be able to say "we're better than
them" rather than "it's OK for me because they did it first".

John

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <e50yc.3938$x%[email protected]>,
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does
not
> > abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them selves.
They
> > thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but not abide by
the
> > Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.
>
> I disagree Leon. Lowering our own standards will not further our cause.

It's great that we can disagree. I wish we could have higher standards but
this is a different kind of enemy. They go after civilians. War is war and
you simply do not want to be on the loosing end. If the enemy understood
diplomacy we would not be at war.

> To parallel past woodworking conversations, consider Delta's woes. To
> compete with lesser quality imports they apparently lowered their own
> quality standards in order to compete against this perceived (import)
> threat and in the process still lost market since a segment of the
> consumers valued quality over price.

I think the problem here is that way too many in the U.S. feel that they
have a right to things that perhaps do not have a right to have. Delta, and
I am sure the labor union that its workers belong to are both to blame.
Call me a bit cold hearted but the workers manufacturing the Unisaw and
other products here in the US are over paid plain and simple. Delta could
probably compete with a great product if it was not strangled with
overpaying its workers. While the workers probably have been loyal and know
their craft well, Delta has deminishing returns on its investment of
employees. Simply put, Delta could compete and build a better product, if
it could pay the employees what they are "really" worth. Lets get real
here. These tools are way behind the technology curve when it comes to
needing "know how" to manufacture them. The simple solution here is to
simply pay the workers what they are really worth so that Delta can compete
or Tax the hell out of the imports like the import automobiles are taxed.

> The US needs to be the leader in human rights and conforming to
> conventions and treaties - if one doesn't fit current times then take
> the high road to change the agreements while still abiding by the rules
> currently in place. An eye for an eye only makes the government look as
> brutal and uncivilized as the perpetrators.

Again I totally agree, but I would rather win the war that has been declared
against us rather than loose because we were the only ones following the
rules.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 01:46:51 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:11:23 GMT, "Joseph Smith" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Same way with the Geneva Convention. None of our advesaries have ever
>>followed it.
>
> The Geneva convention is almost always followed, because it's implemented
> by people who know damn well that they might themselves be in need of it
> all too soon.
>
> Armies may abuse civilians (and I note that they've finally coughed to
> Srebrenica) , but it's most rare for the solidery to begin abuse of other
> soldiers.

Errrr, maybe you could list the wars since the Geneve Conventions were put
in place where both sides have strictly adhered to them?

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> So uh,,, you believe that Iraq was totally inocent, had nothing to do
>with, did not help in any way, those that attacked us. The attempted
>assignation on Bush Sr. does not count?
^^^^^^^^^^^ did you really mean to say this? :-)
> ...

From Merriam-Webster: 2 : an appointment of time and place for a
meeting; especially : TRYST <returned from an assignation with his
mistress -- W. B. Yeats>
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu

Leon wrote:

>
> "Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <e50yc.3938$x%[email protected]>,
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does
> not
>> > abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them selves.
> They
>> > thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but not abide by
> the
>> > Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.
>>
>> I disagree Leon. Lowering our own standards will not further our cause.
>
> It's great that we can disagree. I wish we could have higher standards
> but
> this is a different kind of enemy. They go after civilians. War is war
> and
> you simply do not want to be on the loosing end. If the enemy understood
> diplomacy we would not be at war.
>
>> To parallel past woodworking conversations, consider Delta's woes. To
>> compete with lesser quality imports they apparently lowered their own
>> quality standards in order to compete against this perceived (import)
>> threat and in the process still lost market since a segment of the
>> consumers valued quality over price.
>
> I think the problem here is that way too many in the U.S. feel that they
> have a right to things that perhaps do not have a right to have. Delta,
> and I am sure the labor union that its workers belong to are both to
> blame. Call me a bit cold hearted but the workers manufacturing the Unisaw
> and
> other products here in the US are over paid plain and simple. Delta could
> probably compete with a great product if it was not strangled with
> overpaying its workers. While the workers probably have been loyal and
> know their craft well, Delta has deminishing returns on its investment of
> employees. Simply put, Delta could compete and build a better product, if
> it could pay the employees what they are "really" worth. Lets get real
> here. These tools are way behind the technology curve when it comes to
> needing "know how" to manufacture them. The simple solution here is to
> simply pay the workers what they are really worth so that Delta can
> compete or Tax the hell out of the imports like the import automobiles are
> taxed.

So what exactly is the tax rate on import automobiles?

And I guess the Japanese workers are also overpaid--the Japanese are moving
jobs to other countries with lower labor costs too.

How about the labor in the Third World is just _under_ paid? Because what
happens is that as soon as one of those countries gets any kind of real
economy going the labor rates climb right up to something approximating
First World levels.

>> The US needs to be the leader in human rights and conforming to
>> conventions and treaties - if one doesn't fit current times then take
>> the high road to change the agreements while still abiding by the rules
>> currently in place. An eye for an eye only makes the government look as
>> brutal and uncivilized as the perpetrators.
>
> Again I totally agree, but I would rather win the war that has been
> declared against us rather than loose because we were the only ones
> following the rules.

In war, rule number 1: Survive. That has to be the first priority.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:07:16 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

:>Since he was elected, let
:>him do the job as he sees fit.

: No, how about holding him to the standards of the Constitution ?
: There are limits, even for a president.


Not according to the memos Ashcroft refuses to provide to Congress!


: I envy the US its constitution, and the fabled "checks and balances"
: of its government. On the whole I prefer the UK's political system to
: that of the USA, but your founding fathers did a damn good job on this
: bit.

Too bad the current administration is doing it's damndest to gut them.

-- Andy Barss

In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does not
abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them selves. They
thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but not abide by the
Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.


"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
> guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
> surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?
>
> My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
> fighting.
>
> Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
> the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
> our troops as well.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:11:23 GMT, "Joseph Smith" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Same way with the Geneva Convention. None of our advesaries have ever
>followed it.

The Geneva convention is almost always followed, because it's
implemented by people who know damn well that they might themselves be
in need of it all too soon.

Armies may abuse civilians (and I note that they've finally coughed to
Srebrenica) , but it's most rare for the solidery to begin abuse of
other soldiers.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:48:08 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:04:04 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Oops. Guess you were wrong on that one.
>
> Of course Iraq fired missiles. And if they did it twice (over a decade),
> then I guess that counts as repeatedly. But you're trying to inflate this
> into "going downtown", when it was anything but. The allied forces had
> effective air superiority over the whole of Iraq, and maintained it for
> years.

Well, it was more than twice. here's a SAM firing from 1996:

<http://www.emergency.com/iraqusa.htm>

And here's 20 more from late '98 and '99:

<http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2000/0700deploy_print.html>

And here's couple more with one SAM fired at a plane in Kuwaiti territory:

<http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b5f5a7342af.htm>

How much is enough?

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I blows me
>
> Just the other day, Olive Oyl told me she was wonderin' why you haven't
> been visitin' much lately. ;)


Ugh gug gug gug gug... Brutus has been keeping me busy. '~)

> The US needs to be the leader in human rights and conforming to
> conventions and treaties - if one doesn't fit current times then take
> the high road to change the agreements while still abiding by the rules
> currently in place. An eye for an eye only makes the government look as
> brutal and uncivilized as the perpetrators.


Rather like taking a saber to a modern day fire fight and saying they
don't fight fair isn't it? If you go to a street fight, best not to
expect Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Bill in New Mexico

Andy Dingley wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:07:16 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Since he was elected, let him do the job as he sees fit.
>
> No, how about holding him to the standards of the Constitution
> ? There are limits, even for a president.
>
> I envy the US its constitution, and the fabled "checks and
> balances" of its government. On the whole I prefer the UK's
> political system to that of the USA, but your founding fathers
> did a damn good job on this bit.

They didn't do badly at all, did they? But, Andy, let's not
forget the heritage(s) from which they drew many of their best
ideas...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:04:04 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Oops. Guess you were wrong on that one.

Of course Iraq fired missiles. And if they did it twice (over a
decade), then I guess that counts as repeatedly. But you're trying to
inflate this into "going downtown", when it was anything but. The
allied forces had effective air superiority over the whole of Iraq,
and maintained it for years.

The one time this was allowed deliberately to lapse was, oddly enough,
when Iraqi helicopters were allowed to destroy those anti-Saddam
forces that were inspired to rie up in '91, then hung out in the
breeze to be wiped out.

>The fact is they shouldn't have been doing shit.

Why not ? It was a sovereign country after all, and US and UK
aircraft were engaged in bombing it. I'm not disputing the positive
benefits of doing so, but the legal basis on which it was carried out
was _extremely_ thin.

--
Smert' spamionam

I agree with your entire statement. There are too many
folks eager to armchair quarterback every presidential move.

What galls me the most though, is the lack of unity we
display to the rest of the world. Some of the politicians
act more like traitors than public servants, IMHO. I get
disgusted with the likes of Kennedy. He should stick to
something he does best; drinking.

dave

Leon wrote:

> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
>>Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
>>him do the job as he sees fit.
>
>
> I am going to stand squarely beside you on this one Dave. Imagine how
> much could be accomplished by our government if it was not always at war
> with itself. Republicans against the Democrats. Democrats against
> Republicans. To hell with what is right or good for the people as long as
> one party wins over the other party. I blows me away that both parties
> think that we cannot see this all this crap for what it really is, school
> yard bickering. If the government had to make a profit all this BS would
> come to a screeching halt. We have lost a great leader and my deepest
> respect and sympathy goes to the Ragan family. Why does it take something
> like this for the two parties to work cooperatively together?
>
> But back to the point your were making, if we the people would give the
> president, "any of our presidents" respect and work with him and not fight
> him tooth and nail all the way because he is not a member of the correct
> party, things would be a lot better. If he screws up, we replace him like
> we did with Carter and how we would have done with Nixon had he pulled that
> crap in his first term and had he not decided to resign. I think we as
> Americans have learned to bitch too much and not do anything to help solve
> the problems.
>
>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:52:07 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You might ask the pilots who patrolled the no-fly zones while dodging SAMs
>if they were ever attacked. Is repeatedly firing missiles at our aircraft
>an act or war?

Iraq didn't "repeatedly fire missiles at our aircraft" - they didn't
have them to spare. During the "no fly" phase, any Iraqi SA radar
that went as far as illuminating a target (and that's about as far as
they got) found itself attacked.

--
Smert' spamionam

The radio audio clip I heard a year ago still echos, Dubya saying "He
tried to kill my Dad" but I heard 'Daddy'!

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:56:54 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> The attempt on Bush Sr was 1993. We already bombed the Iraqis in
>> retaliation for that.
>
>And still this mess lingers because we did not do then what we are doing
>now.

In article <e50yc.3938$x%[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does not
> abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them selves. They
> thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but not abide by the
> Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.

I disagree Leon. Lowering our own standards will not further our cause.

To parallel past woodworking conversations, consider Delta's woes. To
compete with lesser quality imports they apparently lowered their own
quality standards in order to compete against this perceived (import)
threat and in the process still lost market since a segment of the
consumers valued quality over price.

The US needs to be the leader in human rights and conforming to
conventions and treaties - if one doesn't fit current times then take
the high road to change the agreements while still abiding by the rules
currently in place. An eye for an eye only makes the government look as
brutal and uncivilized as the perpetrators.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I blows me

Just the other day, Olive Oyl told me she was wonderin' why you haven't
been visitin' much lately. ;)

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:07:16 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>Since he was elected, let
>him do the job as he sees fit.

No, how about holding him to the standards of the Constitution ?
There are limits, even for a president.

I envy the US its constitution, and the fabled "checks and balances"
of its government. On the whole I prefer the UK's political system to
that of the USA, but your founding fathers did a damn good job on this
bit.

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Yes, I believe there is no proof that Iraq provided any aid at all to
> the 9/11 attackers. Do you have any proof to the contrary?


I use tha analogy that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells
like a duck, it must be a duck. Not everything in this world appears as
black and white. Some times you have to rely on life experiences to make
your decisions. Iraq had its chance to avoid problems and it chose to
ignore that chance.


> The attempt on Bush Sr was 1993. We already bombed the Iraqis in
> retaliation for that.

And still this mess lingers because we did not do then what we are doing
now.

Bay Area Dave wrote:

> It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
> Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let him
> do the job as he sees fit.

There's too much wiggle room in that statement - at least for my
comfort. It doesn't bother me that he has considerable latitude
in the performance of his job; but an important part of that job
is to preserve and protect the Constitution.

I feel obliged to respect the office; but do not feel obliged to
respect the office holder if I become convinced that he does that
job badly - if he participates in or acquiesces to activities or
conduct unworthy of respect.

Too, the President serves at the will of the majority of the
population. In my mind he is accountable to the American people
and can not honestly hold the office and simultaneously flout the
will of the people or deviate from either the letter or the
spirit of the Constitution.

> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes,
>>> I'm guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the
>>> memos surfacing that say the president can authorize
>>> torture?
>>
>> Frankly, I'm appalled, and I wish the President would
>> promptly and publicly repudiate those memos and dismiss the
>> people that wrote them.

I'm glad you're appalled - but I'm afraid that even if your
wishes were fulfilled, nothing would change significantly.

>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>> My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
>>> fighting.
>>
>> I agree.

I think Larry's comment is insightful; and I think this is always
a danger. Somehow it seems that when people focus their attention
on others (either as individuals or as a group) they tend to
become more like those others. All too often the opressed turn
right around and conduct themselves as did their former opresors.

>>> Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this
>>> because the Geneva convention and other treaties provide
>>> protection for our troops as well.

Perhaps or perhaps not - I lean toward the "not" side because I
think that other issues can too easily lead to GC violations -
and I don't think that these treaties provide much protection for
our troops at all (even though I really like the idea that they
/might/).

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA