| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I believe there are some rules that seem to be fairly universally accepted. Not included among them is acceptance of ObL's authority to protest Saudi or US policy with murder. Quote: Ummmmmmmmm that is not quite correct. The VietCong were getting their asses kicked quite severely. For all intents in purposes their strongest weapon was the American news media, Walter Cronkite in particular Quote: I think we do it pretty well including an exemplary efforts to avoid collateral damage. Perfection is not possible but I thnk they do pretty well. I don't know anybody else who does it better. It would behoove you not to start a war with us. Else you gon' get raped.
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: The definition of "Empire" can differ from a certain age to another (Classical, post-classical, colonial, modern period). Nevertheless, those 3 main steps, which describes the process of colonization, always remain as the basis of expansion of any empire. Be it the romans, the ottomans, the mongols, the portuguese or the US. By the way I understood your statement, it seems you're rather limited to one definition. Anyway, playing around with the definition of "empire" won't take you anywhere. It is accepted by most scholars that the US is a contemporary empire and it makes perfect sense because all traits of an empire are there, you just don't call you President as The Emperor, but that's just a little detail. a) The US has expansionist interests which are then protected by the use of force. b) Wages wars to control resources (Iraq, Afghanistan). c) Supports corrupted politicians taking them to power so US interests can be protected in those countries (central and south america, Pinochet et all). I could go on forever with examples about the Empire. But one thing I notice is that Americans are the only ones not accepting this fact. The US behaves like an Empire, acts like an Empire then it must be ... pizza ? It doesn't make sense. It is an Empire. You guys just don't accept it ... -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: False. If the US had expansionist interests it would be expanding. It is not. Unless you consider participating in global trade to be expansionism. In which case all nations are expansionist. Say, you know who really was an expansionist? Saddam fucking Hussein. WAKE THE FUCK UP! Quote: ![]() Afghanistan doesn't have any fucking resources to speak of, what are you babbling about? And I don't believe any American companies got any Iraqi oil contracts. Just ![]() Quote: As far as I can tell there aren't any non-corrupt politicians in South or Central America. Who is more corrupt than the great Marxist hope Chavez, who jails offensive media and opposition politicians and recruits terror organizations from a neighboring country to kill both? I'm quite sure you could go on forever. You wouldn't be any more correct, accurate or lucid but I'm sure you could go on. There is no US Empire outside of these 50 states. Quote: As the great trendal would say: "You can stick that fact back in the ass you pulled it out of."
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Do you know what's the problem ? ROE are only applied to conventional war. Terrorists have no structural ROE on the field. No wonder, the ROE were created by the west, OBl and their buddies probably never heard of it before being trained by the CIA. Afterwards, they took advantage by not implementing the rules and exploiting them. See, they are intelligent guys. They wouldn't last a couple of days fighting a conventional war with you guys. Therefore it's naive to think they would follow the "conventional" route. They can be called as "martyrs" by their buddies but they are not stupid "martyrs". How do you say: anything goes in love and war ... or something like that, is probably their main motto. Anyway, OBl gave the middle finger to ROE, but the US were not better when they found him. Let's read the Geneva Convention Article 13, which includes the requirement that prisoners of war: 1) "be humanely treated." 2) must not be "subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind…" 3) "at all times be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." That's a big "fuck you" to ROE in the eyes of what's - how do you call it ? - "fairly universally accepted" . IMHO, Osama got what he was asking for. A bullet in the head. But anyway, it regards to conventions and this single event. The US did no better than the terrorists ... -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Please, oh enlightened one, tell me about what Bechtel did in Bolivia and other latin american countries when they were forced to privatize due to the World Bank and IMF imposition of "structural changes". I can come up with so many examples alike that I doubt the shroomery servers have enough space to store them. Btw, do you know where the IMF and World Bank headquarters are located ? YOU WAKE THE FUCK UP ! Modern Empires only conquer territory if needed. Their main trait is political subjugation by economic exploitation. There's no need for bullets, "buying" their commanding politicians suffices. Is this "global trade" ? The fuck it is ! Ever read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" ? No ? Good read. Maybe it will give some insight about some truth you either don't want to hear, or it's dismissed as lefty propaganda. Because my friend, "righty" propaganda tastes much better ...
-------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire Edited by MAIA (05/10/11 01:19 PM)
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: - Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline ![]() - Vast mineral wealth – more than $1 trillion ![]() - An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries ![]() No fucking resources huh ? For god sake. You only invade a country if you can gain something out of it. It's easy, the taxpayer gets fucked because he's the one paying the war - to the war industry - and then the corporations take the natural resources of invaded countries. There must be definitely something wrong with you eyes and hears .... Then there's naive people wondering why the US doesn't invade Darfur or other African, "lacking resources" countries. I mean, it fucking obvious ! No plata, no invasion ! -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: So? We kill them. All good. By the way, I was most certainly not referring to ROEs. Not at all. Quote: OK. You still haven't made any case at all that ObL is anything other than a mass murderer. Shot during a capture operation. Happens all the time. Quote: Do you know what quarter non-uniformed personnel are granted in the ROE? NONE. They may be shot on sight as spies. Quote: Bullshit. You might have a case if we had bombed the whole town to the ground but we didn't so you don't.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/06 Posts: 1,021 Loc: Last seen: 12 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
They need to follow protocol. only people like hitler don't follow the protocols and it is part of their ideology. Neo-Cons respect nothing , them and israel both defy international law without any care. they are planning and orchestrating operations in a legal vacuum.
| |||||||
|
Shroomery's #1 Spellir Registered: 02/04/08 Posts: 40,372 Loc: SF Bay Area |
| ||||||
Quote:It was a kill-or-capture operation, and they didn't break any international laws; what protocol didn't they follow?
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> It was a kill-or-capture operation, and they didn't break any international laws; what protocol didn't they follow?
The part where they killed an unarmed man that was stunned and disoriented due to flash bangs being used, rather than giving him a day in court to prove his innocence. (Speaking for the tards that are crying over his death. My personal belief is good riddance.) -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
Shroomery's #1 Spellir Registered: 02/04/08 Posts: 40,372 Loc: SF Bay Area |
| ||||||
|
I read that he was killed because he was making threatening advancements towards the SEALs, and because he appeared to be non-compliant with his capture/arrest.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: Bad is a negative qualitative assesment of the person in question- it seems doubtful that you really don't know the answer to this question. If you asking why he's bad, I provided some reasons in the very post you quote. I don't understand what the issue is here unless you just have some semantic objection to the terms I've used. Quote: Yes, they are my rules, but more relevant is the fact that this is what international law has to say on the matter as well: including treaties to which the sovereign powers of relevance are signatories. Quote: What is it with this possesive pronoun use? I didn't get my ass kicked in vietnam. Why have you described these 'rules' as mine? Previously you were asking what the basis for these rules are, and now you apparently have decided to charecterize them as mine, which is irrelevant. Further, you charecterize this law as "conventional war rules" which seems dishonest given I've never claimed any asssociation with 'conventional war' and you've not shown any. No, the vietcong's conduct was not illegal vis a vis their unconventional tactics, except to the extent they violated specific prohibitions: such as fighting S Vietnam without wearing distinctive uniforms/emblems and using the civilian population as a screen/ violating the neturality of neighboring states, et cet. I fail to see what any of this matters. Quote: Your question does not appear to be well-written: I don't know what your saying, except the part about asking if its a better 'allusion'. No, I don't see how this is a better example: nothing you've suggested shows inconsistancy (you don't even assert any, so I'm not sure how you think it relevant). The allied bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, seemed much more questionable than the bombing of Hiroshima (especially) and Nagasaki. I can only presume people keep bringing up the atomic bombs because of their notoriety rather than any particular relevance to questionable acts/ flexible legal interpretations. Quote: I am not interested in your bare conclusions. Please substantiate your claims and cite your factual assertions: you've done neither. Quote: This seems irrelevant: an ad hominem argument. Further, you don't seem to have any identifiable basis for asserting these things: the reasons for my views are not particularly relevant. You've made claims: back them up. Quote: I have no idea what your talking about
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: Please back up your claim that OBL was trained by the CIA. This claim and related ones that he was a CIA asset and so forth seem to be made all the time- yet never backed up. What do you have to support this claim? What is the relevance of "ROE" (rules of engagement?) It has been asserted that OBL violates international law- what does ROEs have to do with anything? What does it matter whether he's heard of them or uses them or doesn't? You just assert these things without showing any relevance at all. Quote: What is the relevance here? Quote: Again, what is the relevance of rules of engagement? You keep saying this and never explain what you mean and what the releance is. It seems you may be confused here. Quote:. Huh? First, you don't need to copy-paste stuff here, just cite your authorities- which you've not even done: that is the third Geneva Convention, Art 13, not "Geneva Convetion Article 13". Second, you fail to establish that OBL was due the protections of Art 13- namely that he was of the class to which those duties of protection are owed: Prisoner's of war as therein defined. Third, you seem to again conflate rules of engagement with international law. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but it seems pretty clear you've been misusing the term "rules of engagement" to refer to international law- or something like that. If your not familiar with a term, please just explain what you mean rather than guessing and obfuscating the conversation- your incorrect use of terms has just muddled your posts even more. Quote: You have not established this, at all. You simply cite (miscite) one article that grants certain protections to a class of people yet fail to eastablish the individual (OBL) was amongst that class of people and that the conduct which occured was in contravention to the treaty. This is not helpful: Go read the convention again and establish that the individual was amongst the classes article 13 gave protections to. Your point seems to be based on unsupported assumptions and faulty conclusions. Quote: What is all this about? It seems pretty clear that you've used a term "empire" and knowingly used some strange alternative definition without disclosing the fact (see: your post in reply to Seuss where you bitch about him using "just one defini9tion of the word). If you want to call the US a lizzard, that's fine, just let us in on what your arbitrarily defined terms mean up front, k? As far as I can tell, you tried to apply the negative properties attached to imperialism to the US yet used a definition that is so different from that in common use that it had no connection at all. This seems manifestly dishonest Quote: Have you established that the US has gained these resources from its invasions? Zappa has, some posts back, very clearly asserted that this has not occured, that the US has not seized oil and that the even US-resident entities have not recieved any contracts for the the resources, either. You've made all sorts of claims, yet failed to establish the premise upon which your entire point was built: that the US invaded to gain the resources held in the country. (your Darfur refrence seems ridiculous on its face. First: Darfur isn't a country and thus has no soverign territory to be invaded. Second: Darfur isn't invading allied countries and toppling their governments/seizing their property, and building up huge militaries. Given that the US intervention in Iraq followed internationally recognized violations of law and aggressive wars against neighboring states, I fail to see how your comparison makes any damn sense at all. Is there any merit to this at all? Or did you just pull this out of your hat in the way you apparently selected Hiroshima and Nagasaki- as I recall, you've still not justified the relevance of that comparison at all, other than the straw man that civilian deaths are the reason OBL is bad or that they are a violation of law)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/13/06 Posts: 54 Loc: Canada |
| ||||||
|
First of all, I can't be bothered to go find the quote but someone referred to those out of uniform being subject to summary execution - um, that only applies if you catch him acting as a soldier (etc) in the war zone. To give an example, if the US declares war on say China, China can't decide to just shoot a bunch of off-duty soldiers who have rotated back stateside after a tour of duty, just because some sino-seal operation catches them out of uniform.
So, just because ObL was not in uniform, is not sufficient reason to shoot him. I would say that if he was clearly surrendering ( I'm not saying that's what happened...) they legally should have taken him prisoner. But come on, we've been told how much of an evil motherfucker this guy is for years. No soldier is going to take the slightest chance that he might be reaching for a weapon. They have to think of their safety first, and we have to respect that. Anyone who thinks that war is not a huge moneymaker for the truly influential in the US is fucking nuts. That doesn't mean wars are never justified, but it means you have to look at every decision through that lens, knowing what the entrenched interests stand to gain. Edited by millar (05/12/11 08:37 PM)
| |||||||
|
imagine Registered: 06/16/08 Posts: 3,857 Loc: 3 Seconds Ago. Last seen: 10 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: OPINION CONCERNING BOLD QUESTION Specifically they seek to make the USA seem like MORE of a victim, by showing how unfair and biased the world can be. Its a way to build patriotism. Obviously it is Ludacris to focus on such a stupid issue. Thats exactly what they want you to notice!!!! It's called manufacturing dissent!! Read up. This can occur because the UN and the US are controlled by the same Authority. -------------------- if you ever feel lost, just remember, life is not a journey, it is entertainment, all 4 fun...
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: Thanks, but we don't need these straw man arguments against ridiculous positions that nobody would support- who exactly doubts that an undertaking as large as war will result in commerce being conducted and a consequent increase in wealth amongst those voluntarily participating? Nobody. Quote: Zappa was referring to the silly rules of engagement nonsense that MAIA brought up- apparently without knowing what they are or conflating them with international law. Whether something violates the ROE for a particular mission really has nothing to do with anything whatsoever- whatever it may imply about the intent and consideration the commanders gave the situation, aside. Quote: agreed in principle Quote: Eh, I don't really buy that they have to think of their safety first and we must respect this. Thinking of your safety and putting the mission first are incompatible stances. A soldier by neccesity can not put safety first because his needs must be subordinant to the mission. However silly it is to expect someone to sign up for service with a military and to comply with dangerous orders regardless of the merits, that is in effect what they do currently.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Osama's letter to the west. | 956 | 9 | 12/02/02 06:12 PM by johnnyfive | ||
![]() |
President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on 60 Minutes Tonight ( |
6,339 | 99 | 08/16/06 01:25 AM by Hank, FTW | ||
![]() |
So, about that Osama bin Laden Tape.. ( |
4,490 | 36 | 01/21/06 02:06 PM by Cubenisseur | ||
![]() |
Bush may bypass Senate and appoint Bolton to UN | 1,522 | 13 | 07/27/05 12:43 AM by Kalix | ||
![]() |
The US is being evil and imperialistic again | 672 | 5 | 07/25/05 11:06 PM by Redstorm | ||
![]() |
It's driving me crazy that the UN scandal is exploding all over the papers and no-one here has click ( |
2,333 | 36 | 11/18/04 03:57 AM by luvdemshrooms | ||
![]() |
Iran's Ahmadinejad looks to export 'new Islamic revolution' | 1,588 | 10 | 08/17/05 04:56 PM by Los_Pepes | ||
![]() |
Eco-Imperialist Awards at Cancun | 807 | 7 | 10/26/03 01:18 AM by PsiloKitten |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 3,043 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



