Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2014 9:34 AM
80 online now:
Diomedes, Malcolm, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric, vimesey (7 members, 73 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,172 Year: 24,013/28,606 Month: 1,314/1,786 Week: 176/423 Day: 13/73 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
27Next
Author Topic:   The Awesome Obama Thread II
dronester
Member
Posts: 1123
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 301 of 397 (655883)
03-14-2012 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Cat Sci
03-13-2012 2:00 PM


Re: Really, some americans still approve of Obama?
CS writes:

I don't think I've ever "supported" Obama...

Yes, I am aware you vote republican. Since you have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about the Bush Jr. Administration, I guess you have a clear conscience.

CS writes:

Your extremely hyperbolic spin-conspiracies are so far off that I just have to go with reality being the opposite by default.

Okay, point taken, will work on it, thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Cat Sci, posted 03-13-2012 2:00 PM Cat Sci has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Cat Sci, posted 03-14-2012 11:30 AM dronester has responded

  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9484
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 302 of 397 (655887)
03-14-2012 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by dronester
03-14-2012 10:57 AM


Re: Really, some americans still approve of Obama?
Yes, I am aware you vote republican.

How could you possibly be aware of that?

What if I told you that I don't vote at all?

Since you have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about the Bush Jr. Administration, I guess you have a clear conscience.

Huh? Who says I have nothing to be embarrased about with that? Too, I didn't vote for Bush so what the fuck are you even talking about?

Are you ever right about anything?

Okay, point taken, will work on it, thanks.

You're failing so far...

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by dronester, posted 03-14-2012 10:57 AM dronester has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by dronester, posted 03-14-2012 11:40 AM Cat Sci has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1123
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 303 of 397 (655889)
03-14-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Cat Sci
03-14-2012 11:30 AM


Re: Really, some americans still approve of Obama?
CS writes:

How could you possibly be aware of that?

Am I mistaken that there was a thread that YOU asserted that you voted republican because you were afraid of what democrats might do?

CS writes:

Huh? Who says I have nothing to be embarrased about with that? Too, I didn't vote for Bush so what the fuck are you even talking about?

Are you ever right about anything?

It was a joke. The winking smile emoticon should have clued you in. Sheesh.

Edited by dronester, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Cat Sci, posted 03-14-2012 11:30 AM Cat Sci has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Cat Sci, posted 03-14-2012 11:52 AM dronester has not yet responded

  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9484
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 304 of 397 (655890)
03-14-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by dronester
03-14-2012 11:40 AM


Re: Really, some americans still approve of Obama?
Am I mistaken that there was a thread that YOU asserted that you voted republican because you were afraid of what democrats might do?

I don't remember.

It was a joke.

Everything you post is a joke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by dronester, posted 03-14-2012 11:40 AM dronester has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 1592
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 305 of 397 (655891)
03-14-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by dronester
03-14-2012 10:47 AM


Re: I approve of much of what Obama is doing.
jar writes:

The German invasion of Poland may not have been legal and whether or not it was moral depended on your point of view.

This is true from a moral relativist standpoint.

I take it you aren't a moral relativist, and it seems pretty obvious that jar is. I doubt you'll ever come to an agreement on this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by dronester, posted 03-14-2012 10:47 AM dronester has not yet responded

    
dronester
Member
Posts: 1123
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 306 of 397 (655991)
03-15-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Rahvin
03-13-2012 11:51 AM


Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Rahvin writes:

I remain morally outraged at the use of drone attacks as counter-terrorism tools, though no longer because of arguments of sovereignty (as the Afghani and Pakistani governments have apparently authorized their use

Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .

quote:
March 12, 2012 Pakistan Ends Drone Strikes in Blow to U.S. War on Terror
Pakistans sovereignty over its airspace and the civilian casualties that have resulted from drone strikes are emotional issues in Pakistan, where public opinion heavily favors terminating drone missions, Pakistani officials say

The [Obama] administration authorized 53 drone attacks in 2009 and 117 in 2010, compared with 35 in 2008 under former President George W. Bush


http://www.businessweek.com/...ions-after-disputes-fray-ties

quote:
Pakistan tells US to end drone strikes

http://www.thenews.com.pk/...n-tells-US-to-end-drone-strikes

If the Afghani population were given a voice, I suspect they too would want the drones to stop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2012 11:51 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 1:29 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 307 of 397 (656008)
03-15-2012 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by dronester
03-15-2012 9:33 AM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
If the Afghani population were given a voice, I suspect they too would want the drones to stop.

They have a voice in their own government. Sovereignty cuts both ways - they aren't entitled to a voice in ours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by dronester, posted 03-15-2012 9:33 AM dronester has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2012 2:18 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 135 days)
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 308 of 397 (656011)
03-15-2012 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by crashfrog
03-15-2012 1:29 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
They have a voice in their own government. Sovereignty cuts both ways - they aren't entitled to a voice in ours.

So if Afghanistan or Pakistan were to revoke any and all permission that may have been granted for the United States to use their airspace for the purpose of drone attacks, their withdrawal of consent is functionally irrelevant if the United States still wants to use drones?

What exactly does sovereignty mean crash? Does it mean you have the exclusive right to control your own territory including whether other nations are permitted to utilize your airspace, or is it a matter of simple mutual recognition, void if one party chooses to ignore the other party's demands?

If you're having consensual intercourse with a woman, and after a time she withdraws consent but you want to keep going, are you permitted to continue, or has the withdrawal of consent now made further acts of coitus into rape?

I think, if we consider sovereignty to be at all relevant (including considering our own ability to control our own territory such as denying the use of our national airspace to a foreign military), that if Afghanistan or Pakistan withdraw consent to allow drone attacks within their airspace, we would be obligated to stop, else be considered a rogue nation committing an act of war by the international community.

Do you think differently? Why, or why not?


The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 1:29 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by dronester, posted 03-15-2012 3:53 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 310 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 4:24 PM Rahvin has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1123
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 309 of 397 (656015)
03-15-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Rahvin
03-15-2012 2:18 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Rahvin writes:

we would be obligated to stop, else be considered a rogue nation committing an act of war by the international community.

Gasp!!! In that event, do you suppose Obama might then be branded a . . . a . . . a . . . war criminal?

[Dronester, with wide-eyes, slacked-jaw, just can't believe Rahvin opened up that can of worms]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2012 2:18 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 4:26 PM dronester has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 310 of 397 (656018)
03-15-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Rahvin
03-15-2012 2:18 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
So if Afghanistan or Pakistan were to revoke any and all permission that may have been granted for the United States to use their airspace for the purpose of drone attacks, their withdrawal of consent is functionally irrelevant if the United States still wants to use drones?

To the extent that military threats to the security of the United States continue to act inside their borders? Yes, I would say that it is functionally irrelevant. The UN would side with us, not them, because the UN has already given its imprimatur to military attacks against al-Qaeda, and that imprimatur was never contingent on the permission of the countries in which al-Qaeda operates.

What exactly does sovereignty mean crash?

It's never meant that nations have some kind of magic shield against warfare. War by its very nature disregards national sovereignty. We go to war specifically because an enemy nation is doing things in their own sovereign territory that we don't want them to do, or they have things in their territory that we want.

Again, your issue is not with Obama but with the very concept of war. And I agree that war is a moral and legal outrage - it's the crime so awful there's no law against it, to use Terry Pratchett's formulation. It means that our use of force on other nations has to be justified by the most pressing reasons.

we would be obligated to stop, else be considered a rogue nation committing an act of war by the international community.

Well, it would probably be considered an act of war, but an illegal one? The community of nations has already approved the use of military force against threats like al-Qaeda, because al-Qaeda has already attacked. Continued drone attacks under those conditions would probably be an outrage to Afghanistan or Pakistan but they would not contradict any of our treaties.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2012 2:18 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2012 4:56 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 311 of 397 (656019)
03-15-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by dronester
03-15-2012 3:53 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
In that event, do you suppose Obama might then be branded a . . . a . . . a . . . war criminal?

Well, he'd have to actually commit a war crime. Drone strikes against military targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan don't violate any treaty to which the US is signatory and it's not a "war crime" since it's a controlled military action against a specific military target.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by dronester, posted 03-15-2012 3:53 PM dronester has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by dronester, posted 03-15-2012 4:31 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1123
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 312 of 397 (656021)
03-15-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by crashfrog
03-15-2012 4:26 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
My message Message 306 was about Pakistan. Try again.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 4:26 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 135 days)
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 313 of 397 (656022)
03-15-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by crashfrog
03-15-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
It's never meant that nations have some kind of magic shield against warfare. War by its very nature disregards national sovereignty. We go to war specifically because an enemy nation is doing things in their own sovereign territory that we don't want them to do, or they have things in their territory that we want.

Again, your issue is not with Obama but with the very concept of war. And I agree that war is a moral and legal outrage - it's the crime so awful there's no law against it, to use Terry Pratchett's formulation. It means that our use of force on other nations has to be justified by the most pressing reasons.

No, frog.

My issue is not with war itself.

My issue is that this is not a war.

There is no enemy nation-state. There is no uniformed enemy military.

We keep calling it a "war," but it's only a war in the same sense that the "War on drugs" is also a war, or the "War on poverty."

We are not at war with Afghanistan, who are supposed to be our allies. We are not at war with Pakistan, who are supposed to be our allies. If we were at war, then of course to hell with concepts of sovereignty, but we are not at all at war with those nations.

I wonder at your position if the Unites States were the militarily weaker nation containing a loose coalition of independent militias hostile to a more militarily powerful external nation presumably allied to the US. Would you think it would be okay for the "allied" nation to dispatch military assets inside of your own borders even after you told them to stop? Wouldn't that rather harm the presumed alliance? If the foreign "allied" nation was killing your citizens on suspicion of being part of those militias with scant (or no) evidence, and your citizens were frightened and angry at the seemingly indiscriminate killings of innocent people (along with some possible number of guilty individuals, but we'll never know the actual ratio), would you consider the "allied" nation to be acting in an ethical manner? Would you want to remain "allied" with them?

Why should other nations trust the United States to respect their own rights to national sovereignty if we show that we're just going to do whatever we want because the other guy doesn't have enough guns to stop us?

Again - if you were having consensual sex with a woman, and partway through she tells you to stop, what happens? Do you have the right to just keep going because you want to, and her rights to her own body don't matter?

If continuing would constitute rape...then how is it ethical to continue to use the airspace of a nation you are not at war with after that nation revokes permission to do so?


The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 4:24 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 6:00 PM Rahvin has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 314 of 397 (656029)
03-15-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Rahvin
03-15-2012 4:56 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
My issue is that this is not a war.

You're absolutely wrong. al-Qaeda is a military in open conflict with the United States. They've killed thousands of our soldiers, Rahvin, attacked our military installations, they train, they identify as part of an army, and they have emblems, uniforms, insignia, and rank:

Images from an al-Qaeda training camp in Pakistan. Those look like uniforms to me. Notice how uniform they all look. These are soldiers, and they're training to attack our soldiers. They've openly declared a state of war with us. It's completely legal to respond with force.

We are not at war with Afghanistan, who are supposed to be our allies.

No, we're at war with the Taliban, who illegally seized control of the nation by force of arms. Similarly, during the American civil war, we were not at war with another country, but with an organization of American white-supremacists and rebels.

Would you think it would be okay for the "allied" nation to dispatch military assets inside of your own borders even after you told them to stop?

"Okay" with who? Remember that adherence to international law is voluntary, in the sense that there's no "nation police" who can arrest countries that break the law. Recall also that different countries have different laws. If it's not illegal in the United States to hate MegaNation or even to plan and execute attacks against the soldiers and civilians of that more powerful country, are they seriously supposed to just sit on their hands?

You asked why we don't send in police to arrest terrorists. Because terrorists live where it's not illegal to be terrorists! You can't arrest someone for breaking another country's laws. (Well, actually, in the US you can be arrested for breaking the laws of another country, even if that country doesn't actually enforce that law anymore.)

Do you have the right to just keep going because you want to, and her rights to her own body don't matter?

I find these rape analogies stupid and insensitive, frankly. I'm not going to respond further to them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2012 4:56 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by dronester, posted 03-16-2012 11:02 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 321 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2012 12:49 PM crashfrog has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1123
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 315 of 397 (656052)
03-16-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by crashfrog
03-15-2012 6:00 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Crash writes:

Well, it would probably be considered an act of war, but an illegal one?

Minnemooseus, NWR, and Rahvin: Crash sways you? Really? . . .

Crash writes:

Because terrorists live where it's not illegal to be terrorists!

This is just a dumb statement. Maybe the following two examples will highlight his hypocrisy and small-mindedness.

quote:
The U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm

quote:
‪Nicaragua v. United States‬

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1984 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[2] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[3]

The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."

The Court had 16 final decisions upon which it voted. In Statement 9, the Court stated that the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. However, this did not make such acts attributable to the U.S.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

Luis Posada Carriles

quote:
On the thirtieth anniversary of the missile crisis, Cuba protested a machine-gun attack against a Spanish-Cuban tourist hotel; responsibility was claimed by a group in Miami. Bombings in Cuba in 1997, which killed an Italian tourist, were traced back to Miami. The perpetrators were Salvadoran criminals operating under the direction of Luis Posada Carriles and financed in Miami. One of the most notorious international terrorists, Posada had escaped from a Venezuelan prison, where he had been held for the Cubana airliner bombing, with the aid of Jorge Mas Canosa, a Miami businessman who was the head of the tax-exempt Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF). Posada went from Venezuela to El Salvador, where he was put to work at the Ilopango military air base to help organize US terrorist attacks against Nicaragua under Oliver North's direction.
Posada has described in detail his terrorist activities and the funding for them from exiles and CANF in Miami, but felt secure that he would not be investigated by the FBI. He was a Bay of Pigs veteran, and his subsequent operations in the 1960s were directed by the CIA. When he later joined Venezuelan intelligence with CIA help, he was able to arrange for Orlando Bosch, an associate from his CIA days who had been convicted in the US for a bomb attack on a Cuba-bound freighter, to join him in Venezuela to organize further attacks against Cuba. An ex-CIA official familiar with the Cubana bombing identifies Posada and Bosch as the only suspects in the bombing, which Bosch defended as "a legitimate act of war." Generally considered the "mastermind" of the airline bombing, Bosch was responsible for thirty other acts of terrorism, according to the FBI. He was granted a presidential pardon in 1989 by the incoming Bush I administration after intense lobbying by Jeb Bush and South Florida Cuban-American leaders, overruling the Justice Department, which had found the conclusion "inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch [because] the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists."

http://www.chomsky.info/books/hegemony02.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 6:00 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 11:15 AM dronester has responded
 Message 327 by nwr, posted 03-16-2012 1:40 PM dronester has not yet responded
 Message 328 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2012 2:03 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
27Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014