Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 16, 2011 19:30:22 GMT -6
George W. Bush committed war crimes by carrying out undeclared acts of war under false pretenses against a foreign country. He should be tried under Iraqi law and hanged, or under US federal law and lethally injected. Alternatively you can give him some cluster bomb explosives and tell him that if he shakes them, they'll make funny noises (irony intended). By the way, olivebranch, I wonder which slavery reparations you'd like to carry out 146 years after its abolition. No former slaves alive today, or do you want people to be CLASSIFIED by race and given advantages according to it? Affirmative action is simply a repulsive act of populism. All individuals should be equal to the law, regardless of race, sex, religion, political thinking, sexual life, genotype, or anything you can think about. About educating children in tolerance, of course I'm in favour of it. Just not in toleration of murder, or any vile acts against any fellow human beings. The answer of society to the worst of these acts should be capital punishment. By the way, I do simply love the irony of our former Spanish Prime minister going to Florida to talk to Jeb Bush in 2003, expressing his support for war in Iraq in the same meeting at which he pleaded to save a convicted Spanish triple murderer from the needle/chair. Worst of all is such contradictions are really nothing surprising in Spanish political life...
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 16, 2011 19:58:00 GMT -6
About educating children in tolerance, of course I'm in favour of it. Just not in toleration of murder, or any vile acts against any fellow human beings. The answer of society to the worst of these acts should be capital punishment. But that is a vile act against a human being. Scumbags are human too.
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 16, 2011 20:52:02 GMT -6
Of course they are, but it isn't vile. It's the proportional answer to their acts, which must be carried out in a dignified way.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 17, 2011 14:26:00 GMT -6
Of course they are, but it isn't vile. It's the proportional answer to their acts, which must be carried out in a dignified way. Is there a way to tell when one act of homicide is vile and another is not? If a murderer kills someone 'in a dignified way', and reports that the act was proportional to the fact that the victim withheld the profits from meth sales, how do you tell whether he is right? He will of course, say that it was the victim's own fault, that the victim knew the rules, etc. Just like pros do.
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 17, 2011 18:08:13 GMT -6
Stealing money (drug based or not) isn't an act proportional to killing a person. I also don't believe in respecting the law for the sake of the law, so for example a man killing another who has committed serious acts of aggression (such as murder, or some other violent one), or who's placing his life in danger, I don't consider it a vile act, even if I know perfectly that there is no way we can decriminalize it in order not to encourage a vendetta based society, and I don't think such a killing is the adequate answer if there is a legal alternative with the same consequences. I remember quite well how you try to make lost the point of a post, so if you want a lengthy study on vileness, I'm sure some sociological thesis might adress the issue.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 17, 2011 18:13:54 GMT -6
Stealing money (drug based or not) isn't an act proportional to killing a person. I also don't believe in respecting the law for the sake of the law, so for example a man killing another who has committed serious acts of aggression (such as murder, or some other violent one), or who's placing his life in danger, I don't consider it a vile act, even if I know perfectly that there is no way we can decriminalize it in order not to encourage a vendetta based society, and I don't think such a killing is the adequate answer if there is a legal alternative with the same consequences. But this is all about what you 'consider' to be proportionate, and whether you consider an act to be vile. Do we have anything better than your gut instincts about which homicides are bad, which ones are good, etc? If you don't feel you can answer my arguments, feel free to ignore me. I'm quite used to people fleeing.
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 17, 2011 18:23:03 GMT -6
This is a discussion board, so I think we are supposed to express our opinions on this issue. I don't think this subjective opinion should be reflected in law, as I've already said above, it is just nothing more than how I feel on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 17, 2011 18:48:34 GMT -6
Stealing money (drug based or not) isn't an act proportional to killing a person. I also don't believe in respecting the law for the sake of the law, so for example a man killing another who has committed serious acts of aggression (such as murder, or some other violent one), or who's placing his life in danger, I don't consider it a vile act, even if I know perfectly that there is no way we can decriminalize it in order not to encourage a vendetta based society, and I don't think such a killing is the adequate answer if there is a legal alternative with the same consequences. But this is all about what you 'consider' to be proportionate, and whether you consider an act to be vile. Do we have anything better than your gut instincts about which homicides are bad, which ones are good, etc? If you don't feel you can answer my arguments, feel free to ignore me. I'm quite used to people fleeing. No such thing as a good illegal homicide. Yet one with any humanity knows the worse are those who go past murder, they torcher, rape as well. and have "no remorse" when murder, also the potential of harming as many as can and wish too. Reason we have different degrees of murder, not all qualify as the worse of the worse, or for the DP needed.
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 17, 2011 19:05:29 GMT -6
For me, law has no ethical weight, so i don't consider bad or good depending on what it does reflect. I support some homicides, some of them might be legal, some of them might be not, and I oppose the vast majority of them, be them legal, or not (we can enter here a discussion on ethics of law, however, which I think does also miss the scope of this point). I mostly agree with what you cathegorize as the worst kind of murders, although I don't think the white-or-black American approach is the best way to classify murders in capital or not; there should be strong guidelines, but there should always be the exceptional murder case punished with execution whose characteristics weren't previously considered by law, as well as an approximated proportionality between punishments (if there was a previous case with the exact same characteristics, or with less aggravating factors, that the one which is being tried, which resulted in execution, you must punish this one with execution also, and viceversa... too much theory here, of course). I also think that most DP states really didn't get the Gregg point on the worst murders, and carry it out in a fully aleathory way.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 17, 2011 22:00:26 GMT -6
This is a discussion board, so I think we are supposed to express our opinions on this issue. I don't think this subjective opinion should be reflected in law, as I've already said above, it is just nothing more than how I feel on the issue. In that case, we should get along just fine. If your opinion is 'I like the death penalty, personally, subjectively, because it gives me a tickle in the right places, but I don't think my personal preference to see scumbags getting iced should be reflected in law' then we are in agreement. I too acknowledge the joys of contemplating scumbags getting theirs, but I too think that my jollies are a poor basis for state sponsored homicide.
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 17, 2011 22:42:58 GMT -6
I do yes favour having well defined and limited death penalty laws and using them, what I don't think should be reflected in law is my personal ethic on the circumstances at which an homicide can be morally right or not.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 17, 2011 23:20:06 GMT -6
I do yes favour having well defined and limited death penalty laws and using them, what I don't think should be reflected in law is my personal ethic on the circumstances at which an homicide can be morally right or not. But that's a contradiction. If you favor the DP in law, then you favor a certain kind of homicide being legally ok. The DP is a form of homicide, in case you missed that detail.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jul 18, 2011 5:42:59 GMT -6
No, because going into war and making a declaration of law is legal, whereas murder isn't legal. What a cop out! Now you have clarified what you will excuse when its inconvenient for you not to should we take any future comments on the DP from you with a pinch of salt? If he did mislead the nation into war that would make him a war criminal.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 18, 2011 8:15:07 GMT -6
I do yes favour having well defined and limited death penalty laws and using them, what I don't think should be reflected in law is my personal ethic on the circumstances at which an homicide can be morally right or not. But that's a contradiction. If you favor the DP in law, then you favor a certain kind of homicide being legally ok. The DP is a form of homicide, in case you missed that detail. Is the right to die with dignity(for the dying) assisted sucide or homicide?
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 18, 2011 9:06:55 GMT -6
I favour capital punishment as a punishment for the most serious violent criminal cases, and consider it a politically and socially desirable law. On the other hand, I consider certain kinds of homicide ethically justified, including executing capital cases and some other cases which I think must be legal homicide (self-defense, for example), but many who I don't legally justify and I do not wish to be legally protected.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 18, 2011 9:30:33 GMT -6
As I wrote earlier, it takes a long time to type out real fact based explanations than it does to type disinformation, deflection and poorly linked sources. UNMOVIC stated there was no artillery shells filled with already mixed Sarin in the Iran/Iraq War. Thus no unitary Sarin in Artillery Shells as HonkeyB keeps trying to claim. The following information is from a 2006 UNMOVIC technical document linked below. “The Iraqi chemical arsenal, produced before 1991, included the following delivery systems: 155-mm artillery projectiles, 122-mm rockets, missile warheads and a variety of aerial bombs. While most of the agents weaponized were filled into aerial bombs, the 122-mm rockets and 155-mm artillery projectiles were the most numerous munitions of the Iraqi chemical weapons arsenal. Iraq declared and inspectors confirmed that the 155-mm projectiles had been filled with mustard gas, while the 122-mm rockets were weaponized with sarin or a sarin/cyclosarin mixture. Iraq also declared that it had successfully developed and tested a limited number of binary artillery systems, including 155-mm and 152-mm shells for sarin but did not enter into serial production of such systems.” www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/technical_documents/s-2006-701-munitions.pdfHonkeyB suggested Iraq could have gotten better quality Sarin components from Russia or other sources. He also suggests they made better and longer lasting Sarin components. There is no evidence to support that in the pre 1991 years according to UNMOVIC’s verification. Iraq later claimed they did not get Binary Shells right for production through 1994 and that was accepted/verified by UNMOVIC as well. Yet, HonkeyB is trying to tell us the Sarin Shell the CIA found was supposedly from that era. Now the actually empty artillery shell CASING may have been made in that time period, but not the Binary Sarin Agents in them. Of course, if they got it or made it after 1994, then they were continuing an illegal and ongoing WMD Nerve Agent program. That means the UN inspectors were running all over Iraq and being fooled by Iraq. . Back to the report: “12. According to the report of the Iraq Survey Group, in addition to the munitions identified by UNMOVIC, during the period from March 2003 to September 2004, a further 53 chemical munitions (11 155-mm, 41 122-mm and one 152-mm binary) had been found by the Group. They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock, and analysis of the liquid residue in the munitions indicated the presence of degraded chemical agents (mustard, sarin/cyclosarin and binary sarin), their degradation products and impurities. The key parts of a National Ground Intelligence Center report, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, mentioned the recovery of approximately 500 chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003, which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents.”Wait a minute, HonkeyB keeps trying to say there is NO degradation of Sarin agent Binary shells and yet ISG stated there indeed was degradation of Binary Sarin. ISG states he is wrong. I will say the report says the articles were from pre 1991 stock, BUT they do not explain how they came to that conclusion as Iraqi WMD shells were not marked or dated. ALSO, the report did not include the 40 percent Sarin Agent strength of the CIA documented Binary Shell and the report just mentioned “gave no details regarding the purity of the agents.” OK, so since UNMOVIC did not have that information, they could only GUESS as to when the shell had been made, stored or refilled. So UNMOVIC was not making a definitive statement about the artillery shell, only reporting the incomplete facts they received from the ISG. Back in reply 103. Honkey B wrote: “ Methylphosphonyl dichloride is stable so long as it is kept dry. Not a big problem in the desert in a sealed container.” HonkeyB either doesn’t know about or is making light of the sealed containers used in Binary Artillery Shells. The sealed containers are most definitely a problem. You can’t just use any sealed container. The canisters for the agents have to be made of a material that is not reactive with the Sarin agents, but that is the easy part. They also must be balanced between being precisely made so they won’t leak and strong enough for storage against being weak enough they will rupture properly from spin of the artillery shell in flight so as to correctly mix the Binary Agents. These requirements demand a sophisticated metallurgy technology Iraq was not known to possess. This is also part of the reason it took the U.S. about 6 to 7 years to make a working Binary Sarin shell for production. . Further, looking up Methylphosphonyl dichloride, we find: It is corrosive! Gee, why didn’t HonkeyB mention that?msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/ME/methylphosphonyl_dichloride.htmlWell, isn’t that nice? Of course by his own link that is NOT what is in the Binary Sarin Shells used by Iraq (even though it can be used for Sarin – but in an even more difficult manufacturing process that Iraq did not use) His own link and his own typing states it is methylphosphoryl difluoride (DF) used in Iraq’s binary Sarin Shells. IOW, he typed the correct component item in the Sarin and then LINKS TO A DIFFERENT CHEMICAL right after it for his “proof.” Is that a mistake or is HonkeyB being deceptive again? No need to even ask….. but you can verify it by looking at his reply 103 and from his own link I will post below again: www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/types-of-chemical-agent/nerve-agents/#c4121The U.S. government used what appears to be a slightly different DF agent than Iraq as a component of Sarin Binary shells, but it is still corrosive. “M20 DF Canister: DOT class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Corrosive Material DOT marking. . . . . . . . . . . .. Corrosive Liquid Nos (Methylphosphonic Difluoride)” 64.78.11.86/uxofiles/enclosures/TM_43-0001-26-2.pdf. . For safety reasons, the U.S. government NEVER stored the M20DF canisters in the Binary Sarin M687 shells. Folks, even as well as we made the canisters for the corrosive DF, we still did not trust the canisters to be both strong and airtight enough for long term storage in the Binary Sarin Shells. “The projectile is comprised of a metal body, aluminum explosive casing, and a loaded M21 OPA filled canister. The M21 OPA filled canister contains one of the non-lethal liquid compounds of isopropyl alcohol, or "rubbing alcohol" found in household medicine cabinets, and a related chemical, isopropylamine (the mixture is designated by the acronym OPA).” www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m687.htmThe agent in the M21 OPA canister is not corrosive. THAT’S why the U.S. could store Binary shells for quite a long time, because they were NOT stored with the corrosive Methylphosphonic Difluoride (DF) filled M20 DF canisters in them. This is most likely the actual background of long term storage the CIA mentioned, but did not explain. HOWEVER, if there is NO methylphosphoryldifluoride (DF) in the Iraq Artillery shell, there is NO percentage of Sarin agent that can be tested and documented. Why? Because all you have is a rubbing alcohol type compound in them. But that shell the CIA talked about had a 40 percent concentration of Sarin agent in it. That can only mean one thing. It was stored with the methylphosphoryldifluoride (DF) canister in the shell and THAT is what degrades over time and is part of the reason the U.S. does not store Binary shells with DF in them. Will continue in Part II
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 18, 2011 9:33:01 GMT -6
Part II OK, back to the UNMOVIC report linked above: “8. The screening of samples of chemical agents taken by the Special Commission from various types of munitions and storage containers during the period 1991 – 1994 showed that the nerve agents had degraded to various levels and that the agent content was generally below 10 per cent and sometimes below 1 per cent. In a few cases, the purity of nerve agents remained around 20 to 30 per cent, and in one case inspectors identified tabun with a purity of 44 per cent.” Please note that UNMOVIC DID NOT separate out the Binary Sarin Shells. That can only mean they INCLUDED THEM in the quality percentages in the above report. (Remember they did talk about the degradation of Binary Sarin in paragraph 12.?) Why is that? Well, it wasn’t JUST that the pre-mixed Unitary Sarin was so bad, it was because of the impurities all along the way as well as Iraq not adding stabilizers. Of course what that means is that even when the chemicals were not mixed, they were so impure and would not last as long. Further, binary shells also demand that very specialized canisters be made to properly contain and store the methylphosphoryldifluoride so it would remain viable over long periods of time. OK, so WHERE is the evidence Iraq did that? NOPE, no evidence of that either as they never got into full large scale production of the Binary Shells even after the Iran/Iraq War. So a Binary Sarin shell from that time period could NOT still have a 40 percent concentration of agents in 2004 IF it came from prior to 1994. That can only mean that sometime AFTER 1994; the Binary Sarin Shell mentioned by the CIA was refilled with a NEW Sarin DF agent canister. And that means Iraq had an ongoing, clandestine, illegal Sarin WMD component storage and refill program. Because Iraq’s Binary Sarin Artillery shells were not marked or identified in any way, there was NO WAY to find out exactly how many of these shells Iraq still had without testing ALL Artillery shells after the U.S. invasion. There was no way the U.S. Armed Forces were going to individually test all those munitions as it would needlessly have risked our troops lives. The U.S. destroyed huge quantities of Iraq’s ammunition including their Artillery Ammunition, BUT they did so by using WMD Protocols in that destruction, so none of our troops would be harmed by any remaining WMD materials. As to transporting and using artillery shells and whether or not the heat of a desert will harm even standard artillery projectiles, (let alone Sarin Binary shells), the proof HonkeyB gives us is only SPECULATIVE about STORAGE of shells, not TRANSPORT or USE of the shells. But perhaps HonkeyB used his vast knowledge of artillery shells and their use in a desert environment? Well, no, he was never in the Armed Forces, let alone in or with the Artillery. On the other hand, I was the Ordnance Officer for an Artillery Battalion and we used and fired standard (not Sarin Binary) shells in the High Desert of 29 Palms, CA.. That IS hot and desert, but not quite as hot as Iraq. Still, whenever the shells were not actively being fired, they had to place a cover over them so they would not get too hot. So are high temperatures a factor that degrades Artillery Shells? Of course they are, no matter what HonkeyB thinks. “Protect ammunition from anything that could cause it to deteriorate. That means guarding against high temperatures, dampness, dirt, sand, rust, grease, rough handling, and anything else that could keep ammunition from doing what it's supposed to,” From “Ammo Operations in the Desert Guide.” www.dsjf.org/Historical%20Gulf%20War%20Documents/Ammo%20Desert%20Guide.pdfNow this is really down-in-the-dirt, common sense stuff. Even if high temperatures did not affect Artillery shells, leaving the shells to bake in the sun and/or on the hot sand of the desert makes them too hot to handle. That means the troops will drop them and one thing you DON’T want to do is drop a Binary Sarin Shell and risk contamination of your own people. I am tired of HonkeyB’s ignorant and arrogant claims that I don’t know what I’m talking about or “making things up” on Artillery Ammunition. Add to that his earlier and continuing deception on what the CIA documents ACTUALLY state rather than what he says they state. (No HonkeyB, the CIA does not definitely state the shell we are discussing came from before 1991 only that it APPEARED to have come from before 1991. That is not a definitive statement even on how old the shell is, let alone how long the Sarin agents had been in it. The facts of this don't change no matter how many times you deceptively state otherwise.) It has become quite obvious all he wishes to do is spin in a desperate attempt to support his position. Oh, no doubt he will likely try more spin, deflection, and deception to try to make his case. I’m sure he will think of more non existent straws to grasp at, but it won’t change these facts. The bottom line is that Saddam is toast and Iraq no longer has any WMD program, nor will it for at least some time to come. Modified to add: Oh, and one more basic 6th grade science note on Binary Shells used in the desert. Alternate extremely high and alternately low temperatures, as are always found in deserts, causes metal objects like DF canisters to EXPAND and CONTRACT. That means the canisters will leak the more they are exposed to those conditions. Another reason you can't leave DF canisters in Binary shells for any length of time when in actual use or in uncontrolled environments.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 18, 2011 9:48:27 GMT -6
George W. Bush committed war crimes by carrying out undeclared acts of war under false pretenses against a foreign country. . Bush got BOTH Congressional and UN approval for the 2002 war, no matter how you attempt to spin it otherwise. False pretenses? LOL. No matter how many times people like you say that, it has never been backed up by facts. OBAMA did not get Congressional approval for his illegal war, so why aren't you condemning him? Modified to add: AFTER ALL, innocent people already have and are dying in Libya thanks to Obama's illegal war.
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 18, 2011 19:20:04 GMT -6
I of course condemn any act of agression against foreign countries, be them carried out by Bush, Obama or the Pope, I don't care. As far as I know, he didn't declare war on Iraq, regardless of any approval he got. What I would have favoured would have been the elimination of certain targets in Iraq (like Saddam or Chemical Ali), as well as giving recognition and support to any local revolutionary anti-Baath party movement. Chemical weapons doesn't justify the thousands of civilian deaths. If an American citizen plants a bomb on a Miami supermarket and kills 100, you favour executing him, right? If an American citizen orders bombing an Iraqi city and kills 1.000, you don't favour his execution? Why that? And, how funny is using weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for mass slaughter, when the USA keeps them itself (nuclear bomb anyone?). As illogical as giving support to a war while trying to save a convicted triple murderer from the needle or the chair, as I commented above Spanish politicians did...
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 18, 2011 21:01:07 GMT -6
I of course condemn any act of agression against foreign countries, be them carried out by Bush, Obama or the Pope, I don't care. As far as I know, he didn't declare war on Iraq, regardless of any approval he got. What I would have favoured would have been the elimination of certain targets in Iraq (like Saddam or Chemical Ali), as well as giving recognition and support to any local revolutionary anti-Baath party movement. Chemical weapons doesn't justify the thousands of civilian deaths. If an American citizen plants a bomb on a Miami supermarket and kills 100, you favour executing him, right? If an American citizen orders bombing an Iraqi city and kills 1.000, you don't favour his execution? Why that? And, how funny is using weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for mass slaughter, when the USA keeps them itself (nuclear bomb anyone?). As illogical as giving support to a war while trying to save a convicted triple murderer from the needle or the chair, as I commented above Spanish politicians did... Saddam Hussein not only had chemical weapons prior to the invasion, but he also had biological weapons before he had most of the evidence destroyed and only some weaponized samples farmed out to the home refrigerators of scientists to hide the samples and to attempt to restart the program after the invasion, and the Kay and Duelfler reports both stated it was quite clear he was going to restart his nuclear weapons program as soon as the sanctions were lifted. Is that enough by itself to invade Iraq? No, it probably wasn't. But that is not all Saddam Hussein did. Was it enough that he tortured and butchered tens, if not hundreds of thousands of his own innocent countrymen and attempted genocide on the Kurds? Some people would say it was not enough or that it was their own fault because they did not overthrow him, even though they would have died by the tens or hundreds of thousands had they tried. But with the entire armed forces in his pockets, that probably would not have been possible. Was it enough that he over ran a completely innocent country and many of their citizens were raped, tortured, murdered and all so Saddam could steal their oil to further his megalomaniac dreams of conquest and empire? As far as I'm concerned - that should have brought the UN down on his Army and himself personally and brought him to trial then. But many people have said that was still not enough. So how far do we let a monster go before we finally stop him? Must we wait until he actually uses Nuclear Weapons on innocent people? We must never forget how many innocent people in Europe and the Pacific that were hurt, maimed or killed stopping Hitler and the Imperial Japanese Ministers. There were a LOT of innocent people who had somehow survived the occupation of the Nazi's and Imperial Japanese Army and then we unintentionally maimed, crippled or killed them getting at the Axis troops. Had we actually had to invade the Japanese home islands, it most likely would have almost required genocide before their leaders would have committed ritual suicide or surrendered. Actually, I am in complete agreement that it is far better to launch a strike on such monsters before they can do ever more murder and mayhem to others. But there is a huge problem with that. We have to have the will to do it and in recent years we have lacked that will.
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 19, 2011 11:58:11 GMT -6
There is something called assasination of certain targets, which doesn't imply mass murder of civilians, nor invasion of a foreign country.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 19, 2011 12:03:15 GMT -6
I of course condemn any act of agression against foreign countries, be them carried out by Bush, Obama or the Pope, I don't care. As far as I know, he didn't declare war on Iraq, regardless of any approval he got. What I would have favoured would have been the elimination of certain targets in Iraq (like Saddam or Chemical Ali), as well as giving recognition and support to any local revolutionary anti-Baath party movement. Chemical weapons doesn't justify the thousands of civilian deaths. If an American citizen plants a bomb on a Miami supermarket and kills 100, you favour executing him, right? If an American citizen orders bombing an Iraqi city and kills 1.000, you don't favour his execution? Why that? And, how funny is using weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for mass slaughter, when the USA keeps them itself (nuclear bomb anyone?). As illogical as giving support to a war while trying to save a convicted triple murderer from the needle or the chair, as I commented above Spanish politicians did... Your country (and Europe) has plenty to do without worrying about Bush. How's the ICJ prosecution of the Yugoslavian monsters responsible for the genocide in Bosnia going?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 19, 2011 13:22:21 GMT -6
There is something called assasination of certain targets, which doesn't imply mass murder of civilians, nor invasion of a foreign country. Ummm....wasn't the Maximum Leader of your country in WWII, Franco, a buttbuddy of Uncle Adolf? And you have the nerve to lecture us?
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jul 19, 2011 13:25:32 GMT -6
I of course condemn any act of agression against foreign countries, be them carried out by Bush, Obama or the Pope, I don't care. As far as I know, he didn't declare war on Iraq, regardless of any approval he got. What I would have favoured would have been the elimination of certain targets in Iraq (like Saddam or Chemical Ali), as well as giving recognition and support to any local revolutionary anti-Baath party movement. Chemical weapons doesn't justify the thousands of civilian deaths. If an American citizen plants a bomb on a Miami supermarket and kills 100, you favour executing him, right? If an American citizen orders bombing an Iraqi city and kills 1.000, you don't favour his execution? Why that? And, how funny is using weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for mass slaughter, when the USA keeps them itself (nuclear bomb anyone?). As illogical as giving support to a war while trying to save a convicted triple murderer from the needle or the chair, as I commented above Spanish politicians did... Your country (and Europe) has plenty to do without worrying about Bush. How's the ICJ prosecution of the Yugoslavian monsters responsible for the genocide in Bosnia going? As long as Bush or anyone else for that matter, conducts a war in this hemisphere it will always be correct for us to be interested and have an opinion, humankind transcends manmade obrders.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 19, 2011 13:28:26 GMT -6
There is something called assasination of certain targets, which doesn't imply mass murder of civilians, nor invasion of a foreign country. First of all, most of the people who continue to howl about Bush would call that an act punishable by Death. I am actually quite surprised how many Obama supporters have zippered their lips and gone silent that Obama has continued the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, started an illegal war in Libya and ordered the assassination of Bin Laden. All that tells me is what rotten hypocrites they are. Next, it is very easy to suggest assassination and an entirely different matter to carry it out, especially in a country so tightly controlled as Iraq was and even Libya, though not QUITE as tightly controlled. MOST trained sniper teams do not blend in well enough to get close to someone like Saddam or Qaddafi. Carter especially and Clinton to a lesser extent; also gutted our CIA from having such operational teams. The U.S. Military had no teams that could have blended into the background in Iraq to carry out such a mission. THEN you have to ensure the target is where you can get at him AND that he is indeed the real person. Saddam had numerous imposters precisely so it would have been so difficult to pin him down. THEN you have to ensure there are at least two avenues of escape (preferably three) for the sniper team, otherwise you are sending them on a suicide mission and that is not something that can be easily ordered or carried out. THEN you have to have a way for them to get out of the country, either by air or sea pick up. In a country like Iraq was, those things would have required intelligence and contacts that we did not have. The technology was there in your country back in the late 1930's to do an assassination of General Franco and yet no one got close enough to do it. It would have been much, Much, MUCH easier to do after he aligned himself with Hitler in your country than taking out Saddam Hussein. The Spanish opposition were FROM Spain, spoke the language, knew the customs, knew the land and cities, etc., etc., etc. and they never got Franco. So even when the people are IN AND FROM a country, assassination is no easy thing.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 19, 2011 13:29:41 GMT -6
There is something called assasination of certain targets, which doesn't imply mass murder of civilians, nor invasion of a foreign country. Ummm....wasn't the Maximum Leader of your country in WWII, Franco, a buttbuddy of Uncle Adolf? And you have the nerve to lecture us? You beat me to the punch while I was typing.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 19, 2011 14:03:23 GMT -6
humankind transcends manmade obrders. Not really, Felix. We humans determine what is of value and what is not, which is perforce subjective and malleable. After all, Nuremberg only went so far.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 19, 2011 14:05:22 GMT -6
humankind transcends manmade obrders. Not really, Felix. We humans determine what is of value and what is not, which is perforce subjective and malleable. After all, Nuremberg only went so far. A most excellent point.
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jul 19, 2011 20:42:07 GMT -6
Californian, that answer denigrates you as a person. Many people here in my country hate Franco, and would wish to have seen him executed. Many people died fighting against him, or were imprisoned in inhumane conditions, including some not very close family members of mine. Being Spanish has nothing to do with favouring Franco, or do you feel very close to the eugenics programs of your country, which carried out thousands of forced sterilizations "for the good of society"? Or do you feel close to the culture which spent a century seggregating people for their race, and went as far as refusing to punish lynchings and murders of activists and young blacks? Or to the culture which destroyed two Japanese cities and went as far as calling heroic acts those mass murders? Or to the culture which prosecuted people because of what they did in their bedrooms till less than a decade ago (and still does in some cases)? I don't think being an American makes you identify with those actions, as well as being Spanish doesn't make me identify with a bunch of traitors who took our country's government by force. So of course I lecture and will lecture those ones favouring the murder of innocent civilians, and obviously my nationality isn't related to it. I favour trying those ones convicted of genocide in their countries, not by any international court, and very obviously would like to see all of those Yugoslav murderers tried and shot. About assassination, local citizens of the country could very well be used as agents, and snipers aren't the only way to kill someone, you know... look at the Mossad methods.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 19, 2011 22:09:09 GMT -6
I favour trying those ones convicted of genocide in their countries, not by any international court, and very obviously would like to see all of those Yugoslav murderers tried and shot. Well as I'm sure you realize, that is usually not possible with the people who most often need to be tried in their own countries, by their own people. The U.S. did do that in Iraq, BTW. About assassination, local citizens of the country could very well be used as agents, and snipers aren't the only way to kill someone, you know... look at the Mossad methods. Once again, the Spanish opposition to Franco never got it done. The Germans never got it done with Hitler. With the terror Saddam spread and with buying off his military, that never got done in Iraq, either. It never got done with Qaddafi. The Massad methods work because they intensively train and study their local enemies and their physical features are enough like their enemies to blend in. However, even they would run into most of the same problems I outlined above in Iraq. IF it was something was so easy to do, they would have taken out Saddam long ago. So that suggestion is also not valid. The best way to do it nowadays, once you have identified the target is actually IN a certain place and it takes ground operatives to do that, is to use cruise missiles or air strikes with smart bombs.
|
|