- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
A brave new world
- Thread starter dmytryp
- Start date
Ah, more change we can believe in.
Nice to know that if FedGov doesn't like the rules, they can simply decide to start a different ball game, with a different set of rules, then make everybody play. I thought a "Constitutional Scholar" would perhaps stop the end runs around the Constitution.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
Look, Don. I know your positions on these issues, but at some point you have to recognize that those are minority positions (a very small minority). Most people do recognize that there is a need to somehow deal with the enemy combatants (terrorists) captured abroad. Most people also recognize that affording them the full protection given to US citizens is illogical and would lead their release. And in the end, the President, "constitutional scholar" or not has as his top priority the safety of US citizens, not the rights of terrorists that would harm them.
Yeah, most people do lots of things that the authorities declare are right, without passing any more judgement than that. I guess I was also a bad citizen because I didn't run out and get myself in horrid debt and buy way more house than I can afford so that I'd fit in to the 'good citizen' mold. I'm not dumping my belief that ignoring the rule of law and making new ones as you go along is wrong, legal or not.
Mobocracy is a poor excuse for morality. Pardon me if I don't join the "state uber alles" parade.
Oh, and that's the same "state" that published reports that said I qualify as a terrorist, so pardon me if I have no appreciation for how they skirt the law to deal with their enemy of the week.
Mobocracy is a poor excuse for morality. Pardon me if I don't join the "state uber alles" parade.
Oh, and that's the same "state" that published reports that said I qualify as a terrorist, so pardon me if I have no appreciation for how they skirt the law to deal with their enemy of the week.
Obama (while campaigning): I'll shut it down.
Obama (as president): LOL NEVER MIND. FOOLED YOU HAHA.
Obama (as president): LOL NEVER MIND. FOOLED YOU HAHA.
Okay, Don.
Use your Libertarian Space Brain and enlighten us poor sots: What would you do with these guys?
Use your Libertarian Space Brain and enlighten us poor sots: What would you do with these guys?
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
I think you somewhat misunderstand me. I just suggest that you allow your personal views to get in the way of objectively analyzing the situation. You are not the President and you are not responsible for the lives and welfare of the US citizens. You are also not privvy to security briefings. That means that you have to recognize that your position is maybe, just maybe effected by the lack of responsibility.
Yeah, if I were responsible for the lives and welfare of US citizens, I wouldn't have been running around the world for decades, looking for hornet's nests I could jab sticks into.
The problem with our long-term foreign policy of wallowing in the mud with the pigs to steal their morsels has left us with no high moral ground to retreat to.
How different would the world be today if this had been the State Department's motto?
The problem with our long-term foreign policy of wallowing in the mud with the pigs to steal their morsels has left us with no high moral ground to retreat to.
How different would the world be today if this had been the State Department's motto?
Instead of our current transparent claim of the right to meddle in anybody's affairs.Thomas Jefferson said:
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
Oh, please. The first part of your statement doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny, but I really don't want to derail this, so let's leave it at that.
You are an idealist. Idealists rarely make good leaders.
US, just like any other state has interests. And sometimes those intersts clash with interests of other states. And when the clash is irreconcilable, no amount of talk of accomodation or "moral high ground" will change this.
Yeah, and if I were running the United States, we'd have fusion reactors run via Deuterium-3 funneled from the moon, and have started putting more and more of our industry into space, and robot butlers would be cleaning our shoes and I would wander around DC with a cane, beating people to death and challenging them to duels.
But that's not the world we live in (which is doubtlessly good new for both the Moon Men and those I'd challenge to duels).
The world we live in has quite a few very nasty folks that we have to deal with, before we can try and stop jabbing sticks into anthills.
Now!
How would YOU, Don, Deal with these very nasty folks.
Please, I want to know, cause I'm plum outta ideas...
But that's not the world we live in (which is doubtlessly good new for both the Moon Men and those I'd challenge to duels).
The world we live in has quite a few very nasty folks that we have to deal with, before we can try and stop jabbing sticks into anthills.
Now!
How would YOU, Don, Deal with these very nasty folks.
Please, I want to know, cause I'm plum outta ideas...
Yeah, so it's perfectly justifiable, in the interest of those interests, to depose leaders, destabilize countries, blockade food from the citizens (but the leaders always manage to eat) or otherwise act like the biggest bully in the schoolyard, simply because you can. Might makes right.
If we acted like that at an individual level, it would rightly be considered criminal. When countries do it, it's considered statesmanship?
You're absolutely right, dmytryp, you and I will never see eye to eye on this. I just hope you never move in next to me and decide you need the 10 gallons of gas in my garage. My wife would wake up one morning and find I'd been replaced by a new husband who agreed with your stance.
If we acted like that at an individual level, it would rightly be considered criminal. When countries do it, it's considered statesmanship?
You're absolutely right, dmytryp, you and I will never see eye to eye on this. I just hope you never move in next to me and decide you need the 10 gallons of gas in my garage. My wife would wake up one morning and find I'd been replaced by a new husband who agreed with your stance.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
I know this would be hard for you to hear, but this is the way of the world for, I don't know... Since forever. Oh, and I disagree with your assesment that US does things simply because it can.
Nice to see you managed to keep this on the level of not stooping at making personal jabs.If we acted like that at an individual level, it would rightly be considered criminal. When countries do it, it's considered statesmanship?
You're absolutely right, dmytryp, you and I will never see eye to eye on this. I just hope you never move in next to me and decide you need the 10 gallons of gas in my garage. My wife would wake up one morning and find I'd been replaced by a new husband who agreed with your stance.
Short answer, Zoombie, I'd tell Blackwater they need to quit nation-building, act like the mercenaries they are, and bring me OBL's head on a pike. I'd give them a big reward, and display OBL's head in front of the Capitol Building, along with a warning for future maniacs who thought they could take on the might of the baddest country in the world.
Then I'd have that new motto engraved on the State Department, start untangling us from those alliances and promoting non-cohersive relationships with other countries.
Yeah, I know, totally unrealistic. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is just idealism today, for some reason.
Then I'd have that new motto engraved on the State Department, start untangling us from those alliances and promoting non-cohersive relationships with other countries.
Yeah, I know, totally unrealistic. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is just idealism today, for some reason.
Yeah, I already got the whole "two wrongs make a right" thing.
You're right. I should have said Bush, Cheney, Obama, or Clinton instead of dragging you into the example.
Me, I'd go for more non-militaristic involvement with other nations while making the Ministry of Defense actually, ya know, about defense and not through preemptive aggression.
Cause, well, I don't want to go full isolationist, as this is a far more global world than it was the last century, and we have to live with that. Heck, in many ways, globalization is a very good thing. Promotes free trade, which promotes "Not killing eachother".
Course its also a bad thing in other ways that I don't feel like going into here, cause I, like anyone with an opinion, don't want you to hear the other side.
And then I'd spend more money on creating incentives for industries to work in space.
Cause, well, I don't want to go full isolationist, as this is a far more global world than it was the last century, and we have to live with that. Heck, in many ways, globalization is a very good thing. Promotes free trade, which promotes "Not killing eachother".
Course its also a bad thing in other ways that I don't feel like going into here, cause I, like anyone with an opinion, don't want you to hear the other side.
And then I'd spend more money on creating incentives for industries to work in space.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
That's not what Zoom asked. But let's examine this statement. You propose for a gov sponsored org to go and act judge jury and the executioner, killing G-d knows (I doubt you would want to know) how many innocents in the process. Isn't this like... I don't know... What the CIA is doing for years with regards to threats?
"]This is mostly unrelated to this conversation, but the following quote is:
No, it is mostly what US does (sometimes the "speak softly" part get s lost) and what you just tore down a couple of posts ago
See, Zoombie, you and I are pretty close in how we'd change foreign affairs.
And BTW, the "Pirates and Emperors" video you posted pretty well sums up the whole thing, as far as I'm concerned.
And BTW, the "Pirates and Emperors" video you posted pretty well sums up the whole thing, as far as I'm concerned.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
What two wrongs? Really, Don. US is not some kind of an isolated body acting in a vacuum. There never is, never was and probably never will be a state that acts the way you envision it. You also consistently neglect the small but important fact that there are other players around. And they are not always friendly. And definitely don't act the way you want US to act. And what's more *gasp* they never will even if US does. And you know what's more? *gasp* The way US acts has little bearing on the way they act, because they have... That's right, their own interests at heart.
So does that mean you just wanna shoot these prisoners into space and have them worked to death on the Moon Mines of Colony 12?
Oh, the prisoners. I'd expect to see some bills of particulars leading to real trials where evidence is presented to prove they are terrorists. Then hang the bastards that are guilty.
And dm, the death of innocents should always be treated as murder, not collateral damage. My argument is that small teams of counter-terrorists are needed to fight a war on terror, not advancing armies smashing villages, fighting WW II all over again.
Our argument is with a gang of individuals, not a formal government. We need to target those individuals, not the people who happen to live in the same neighborhood.
Or should we carpet-bomb our inner cities to get rid of the drug lords? (yeah, I know, it's a tongue-in-cheek analogy).
I know that, for some stupid reason (read - self-preservation) nation-state leaders consider it bad form to target other nation-state leaders, and instead prefer to send their youth to battle each other. I don't think that's an effective mode of stopping terrorism. We must specifically target the terrorist leaders.
Warn the nation-states that anyone harboring those leaders can expect incursions into their nation-state to capture or kill those terrorists. If nation-state leaders are in fact terrorists, target them like any other terrorist. Quit killing innocents and our children, and go for the head of the snakes.
And dm, the death of innocents should always be treated as murder, not collateral damage. My argument is that small teams of counter-terrorists are needed to fight a war on terror, not advancing armies smashing villages, fighting WW II all over again.
Our argument is with a gang of individuals, not a formal government. We need to target those individuals, not the people who happen to live in the same neighborhood.
Or should we carpet-bomb our inner cities to get rid of the drug lords? (yeah, I know, it's a tongue-in-cheek analogy).
I know that, for some stupid reason (read - self-preservation) nation-state leaders consider it bad form to target other nation-state leaders, and instead prefer to send their youth to battle each other. I don't think that's an effective mode of stopping terrorism. We must specifically target the terrorist leaders.
Warn the nation-states that anyone harboring those leaders can expect incursions into their nation-state to capture or kill those terrorists. If nation-state leaders are in fact terrorists, target them like any other terrorist. Quit killing innocents and our children, and go for the head of the snakes.
I'd go more for the mice that feed the snakes: Remove the conditions that drive people to terrorism.
That requires making marked improvements to their standards of living. A great way to do that would be to...uh...stop invading them.
Support moderates in both political and religious positions.
Give them money that will actually be spent on improving infrastructure (easier said than done, imo).
And immediately remove any and all aide when we are attacked by insurgents, so when Joe Everyman over there notices all the nice things are gone, they'll turn on the terrorists.
Course, this has the problem of being expensive and making them dependent on us, so we should make sure our efforts are on improving their ability to fend for themselves...education and infrastructure is good for that, make it so they can actually trade with us.
Now, this is a lot easier said than done and there are surely a thousand million things wrong with it...its the kind of idea that pops up after playing way too many city building games, where things do what you tell them to do.
Yeah, I'm not a very good civic planner, my cities keep going into debt...
That requires making marked improvements to their standards of living. A great way to do that would be to...uh...stop invading them.
Support moderates in both political and religious positions.
Give them money that will actually be spent on improving infrastructure (easier said than done, imo).
And immediately remove any and all aide when we are attacked by insurgents, so when Joe Everyman over there notices all the nice things are gone, they'll turn on the terrorists.
Course, this has the problem of being expensive and making them dependent on us, so we should make sure our efforts are on improving their ability to fend for themselves...education and infrastructure is good for that, make it so they can actually trade with us.
Now, this is a lot easier said than done and there are surely a thousand million things wrong with it...its the kind of idea that pops up after playing way too many city building games, where things do what you tell them to do.
Yeah, I'm not a very good civic planner, my cities keep going into debt...
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
They will be tried with evidence presented. Just in a military tribunal. This is what Obama had reverted to, and was right to do.
The death of innocents is always tragic. the difference between murder and unintentional manslaughter was, however, recognised in something like 12th century.
As for your contention about fighting terrorists -- your knowledge of the tactics and the equpment is sorely lacking. Sure, leveling a city to get a few terrorists is wrong, but if you think they are some kind of primitives just sitting in caves and waitng for you to come and kill them, or that any kind of operation against them (and I do mean any kind) will not result in some innocents being killed, you are mistaken. Israel held the notions you just made prior to '06 war with Hezbollah. Then, we learned that they had advanced weaponry -- tandem anti-tank missiles, anti-ship missiles, thermal vision instruments, intelligence gathering that was on par with ours (they knew battalion commanders' cell numbers, their home adresses, almost everything about them). You know how we learned this? By paying a price of 130 of our dead. And then, a couple of years later, Hezbollah showed the US funded democratic leadership of Lebanon who was really the boss. And it wasn't the lebanese military.
Let me illustrate this "gang" of individuals for you. There are 1.2 bil Muslims in the world. Even if just 10% of them (which I think is a pretty modest number) is an extremist, that means 120mil people. That's about a third of US population. How is that for a "gang" of people. The fact that they ae not concentrated in one place, makes it all the more problematic of locating and going after them.
When was the last time US military carpet-bombed anyone? Vietnam?
This might be news to you, but the West targets the leaders of terrorist organisations routinely. The not-killing heads of states usually doesn't cover terrorists. But again, if you think this can be done easily and without loss of innocent lives, you are sadly mistaken.
Isn't this what US did in Afghanistan? And trying now to do in Pakistan? And again, how do you propose to have those incursions without any innocents being killed? Just for comparative info -- a 2:1 ratio of non-combatants:combatants is considered extremely good in counter terrorist (read operations like you propose) operations. Even the most successful operations (like Israeli raid on Entebbe) had several innocents killed.