|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 09/28/2006 : 11:34:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You better provide some sources for that claim.
I've found the records and confirmed that is, in fact, what it says. If you want me to scan it and email it to you, let me know. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 09/30/2006 10:57:36 |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 13:28:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
chaloobi said:
quote:
Think of a war where this is not the case, where both sides entered the conflict responsibly, reasonably and justly and post it. I would be fascinated to see it.
The US revolution? Both sides had legitimate reasons for fighting that war, the British to put down a terrorist uprising in their territory and the colonies to escape from what they percieved as unjust trade and taxation policies.
There are others.
While I would agree with you that conflict should always be the last resort, there are times when the use of armed force is the only ption left. For much of human history war was seen as a very legitimate way to settle disputes.
Calling all wars criminal is irrational until you can show us a law that makes all wars illegal. You may feel that war is wrong, and you probably wouldn't get much dissent from that opinion here, but that is not the same as war being an inherently criminal act.
<snip>
Just a couple comments:
#1. I agree, 'criminal' is the wrong word to use. The context is in a legal framework. Lots of horrendous acts may be perfectly legal if the law allows for them... Maybe a better word would be 'immoral.' Yes it's context based too, but to a much lesser extent.
#2. Hmmm....the Revolutionary War.... This is a good example. I wonder if the judgement of rational justification comes out the fact that the revolutionaries won? The argument can be made that initial justification for uprising against Brittish rule was pretty flimsy. Of course the Brittish response to the rabble rousing only served the interests of the rabble rousers (much like our response to terrorism today, ironically).
But if the Brittish had won, would you still think the the Revolution was rational? If they put the revolution down and the colonies remained in Brittish control after years of brutal, destructive fighting, how would we judge the decision to rebel, especially in light of the flimsy justification?
I still think the argument is open that war is not rational. They are a failure of the rational mind - arrogance, mistrust, poor imagination, ignorance, greed, ambition, whatever. Do you really believe that some disputes MUST be solved by wholesale slaughter? Some disputes CANNOT be solved objectively between two or more parties willing to 'work it out' and trust their adversary even just a little? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/28/2006 13:32:10 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 13:39:52 [Permalink]
|
| Criminal has a different meaning than illegal. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 14:52:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Criminal has a different meaning than illegal.
Perhaps it would be best for all concerned if you share your definition of "criminal." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 15:02:31 [Permalink]
|
condemnable: bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure; "a criminal waste of talent"; "a deplorable act of violence"; "adultery is as reprehensible for a husband as for a wife"
guilty of crime or serious offense; "criminal in the sight of God and man"
involving or being or having the nature of a crime; "a criminal offense"; "criminal abuse"; "felonious intent"
someone who has committed (or been legally convicted of) a crime
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 15:06:35 [Permalink]
|
chaloobi:
quote:
Do you really believe that some disputes MUST be solved by wholesale slaughter? Some disputes CANNOT be solved objectively between two or more parties willing to 'work it out' and trust their adversary even just a little?
If you cannot reach accomodation through diplomacy, then you will eventually be required to use force.
Do I think it is a failure of both parties when diplomacy fails? Sometimes, yes. But what about when one side is beyond the reach of reason? Can you imagine a diplomatic solution to WW2, when Germany was in a position of percieved strength, do you think there was any chance we could have talked Hitler out of his war of conquest and genocide?
There are times when the only way you get to stay alive is by killing somebody else.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 16:04:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are times when the only way you get to stay alive is by killing somebody else.
That much is probably true. But, I haven't found military conflict that the United States has engaged in since 1945 that meets those criteria. Doesn't mean that they don't exist, just that I have not found one. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 21:06:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
...Clinton's illegal actions...
...Killing someone in violation of the law is murder.
Bombing pharmaceutical companies,is a violation of international law.
...murderous attacks for murder's sake...
...these ilegal attacks...
...murder...
...international law...
The U.S. is a signatory to the U.N., which is the law of the land, according to the U.S. Constitution, which makes treaties the law of the land.
The U.N. charter and Nuremberg makes attacking other countries without following certain criteria illegal.
Where do you get this idea that international law does not exist?
His actions against Iraq, Yugoslavia, Sudan and Afghanistan were as illegal...
...at least Bush isn't afraid to say that he doesn't care about things like international law.
Who murdered more?
Clinton illegally attacked all those places...
Bush illegally attacked all those places...
They did not bring him down for illegally attacking Cambodia and Laos...
And then:quote:
Criminal has a different meaning than illegal.
Perhaps you'll understand why when you say "criminal," most people here think that you're using "criminal" to mean someone who has broken the law (done something illegal), and not, for example, "condemnable: bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure."
Really, have you, Gorgo, used the word criminal to mean something other than "someone who has engaged in illegal actions?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 04:09:03 [Permalink]
|
A while ago, I told people here that I was a member of the War Resister's League. To belong, all you have to do is agree with the statement that war is a crime against humanity. (edited to say that at the time that I joined, that's all you had to do. now they have some statement about Gandhian nonviolence that I'm not completely sure I agree with - see warresisters.org)
I thought that was what someone was referring to when they said that I thought all wars were illegal. I haven't said that all wars are illegal. In fact, I don't think much of what international law is. (edited to say that I mean I don't have a high opinion of international law) It's a victor's justice.
The quotes above don't use the word criminal, but it would be proper to use the term almost interchangeably with the word illegal in most cases. I think you'll find that 'illegal' pertains to a violation of existing rules, and 'criminal' or even 'crime' can go beyond that. Is that clear? Would you disagree? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 09/29/2006 05:36:45 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 05:32:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is one I'd like to find, too. I wondered where I got this idea, and it's a Chomsky claim.
I take that back. The book 'Understanding Power' is not written by Chomsky. It takes Chomsky interviews and talks and put a lot of footnotes with them, so the editors are responsible for the footnotes, and not Chomsky. (online at understandingpower.com)
Whether they checked out the footnotes or not is another matter. I see one has to go to a GPO library to see a copy of that Senate Committee hearing. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 06:38:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
If you cannot reach accomodation through diplomacy, then you will eventually be required to use force.
Right, but isn't the failure of diplomacy the result of irrational decisions on one or more sides of a disagreement? If people were behaving responsibly, rationally, justly, etc (all those things that people only do some of the time....) there would not be war.
quote:
Do I think it is a failure of both parties when diplomacy fails? Sometimes, yes. But what about when one side is beyond the reach of reason? Can you imagine a diplomatic solution to WW2, when Germany was in a position of percieved strength, do you think there was any chance we could have talked Hitler out of his war of conquest and genocide?
It only takes one party to make diplomacy fail. And when it fails, it's not necessarily a failure of both. The rest of Europe bent over backwards to try to prevent ww2, but they failed to realize that Hitler never intended NOT to go to war. He was not rational though.
I still can't get my brain around the idea of "gee, I'm glad we went to war over THAT issue rather than working things out peacefully!" I've read arguments that War can solve issues more decisively and result in a more socially/politically stable situation that is better for all parties in the end. Like, if Japan and the US never went to war, and there was this ongoing semi-standoff for control in the Pacific region for the last 60 years. Would that have been better in the long run, avoiding the burning of Japanese cities and the wholesale slaughter at the end of ww2? Could the region have the prosperity it has today if diplomacy had kept the peace?
But then, if I put my idealist hat on, I can argue that if people dealt with each other justly, rationally, fairly, there would not be the level of disagreement and conflict to result in long-term standoffs or war. But of course people arn't like that. At all levels many/most of us are constantly jockeying for some kind of percieved advantage. Which means we ultimately won't deal with each other fairly, if we can get away with it. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/29/2006 06:42:25 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 06:51:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've read arguments that War can solve issues more decisively and result in a more socially/politically stable situation that is better for all parties in the end. Like, if Japan and the US never went to war, and there was this ongoing semi-standoff for control in the Pacific region for the last 60 years.
I wonder if we would have been better off going to war with the Soviet Union then instead of decades of standoff... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 07:25:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
The quotes above don't use the word criminal...
The quotes I posted were to show the context in which you're saying that the word 'criminal' doesn't necessarily mean illegal. I agree that it doesn't, but it's not obvious from your posts that you were using the word to refer to anything but actual illegal acts. In how many of your posts may we replace the word 'criminal' with the word 'condemnable' and have your meaning remain unchanged? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 07:35:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
I've read arguments that War can solve issues more decisively and result in a more socially/politically stable situation that is better for all parties in the end. Like, if Japan and the US never went to war, and there was this ongoing semi-standoff for control in the Pacific region for the last 60 years.
I wonder if we would have been better off going to war with the Soviet Union then instead of decades of standoff...
On a serious note, the paradigm with the cold war was different because of nuclear weapons.
On a light note, there wouldn't be international terrorism today...or global warming....or trade....or much of anything. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 11:33:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In how many of your posts may we replace the word 'criminal' with the word 'condemnable' and have your meaning remain unchanged?
I don't know what you're talking about. In some of the quotes (actually all) you have, I have used neither word. In one I have said "it is a violation of international law." How is that using the word 'criminal' in some way that is hard to understand? I've explained why I said what I said. Some person said that I said that all wars are illegal. Maybe you think I said that as well. Show me where I said that, and show me where I used the word 'criminal' in some way that's difficult for you to understand, and I'll sincerely try to help. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 09/29/2006 11:43:36 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
