|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2002 : 04:54:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So the country with the largest economy and the largest army gets to decide who can and can't have nuclear weapons??
Hi, Omega. I think the answer here is ah, well...yes, of course. Unfortunately, the biggest kid on the block gets to make all the rules. It's his choice how fair those rules will be. It may not be ideal, but that's the way it works. Other kids can make suggestions, but ultimately strength rules.
Fortunately, we have an idea called alliances, but most kids don't want to bite the hand that feeds 'em.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 17:18:34 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo that link had nothing to do with the Gulf War. It was completely irrelevant to the specific charge that these places were deliberately targeted.
That example was from 30 years ago or more.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 18:22:35 [Permalink]
|
You had asked me to ask people who had dropped bombs what they thought about dropping bombs.
You're very perceptive, however. It had nothing to do with the Gulf War, and I didn't say that it did. There is no question that those in power knew exactly what was happening.
quote:
Gorgo that link had nothing to do with the Gulf War.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 18:33:40 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, I am specifically addressing the claim that during the Gulf War the specified structures were intentionally bombed. Nothing that you have presented supports that claim. It doesn't even come close. That is not the sort of proof I was asking about. I want to see any proof that those buildings were deliberately bombed during the Gulf War and not by long dead soldiers led by even longer dead generals.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 03:52:42 [Permalink]
|
Well, Howard Zinn isn't a long dead soldier first of all.
Second of all, I made no claims for proof of anything if that were even possible on these forums. What I said was, if you were interested in proof, you'd work towards gaining a free press in this country, and some kind of reasonable international justice system.
Now, saying that nothing supports that claim is ridiculous. Bombing a country the size of Texas for 42 days with more fire-power than was unleashed by the U.S. during WWII is proof of terrorism in and of itself.
quote:
Gorgo, I am specifically addressing the claim that during the Gulf War the specified structures were intentionally bombed.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 09:29:11 [Permalink]
|
Let me refresh your memory, Atomic. You said, "But what's this about bombing scools and hospitals?? Give me a break!"
I showed you some evidence that hospitals and schools were bombed.
Then you started on requesting proof that this was done intentionally. In order to talk about crimes, you have to talk about laws. Since the U.S. is above the law, I'm not getting into that kind of proof. Obviously, Ramsey Clark and the others who formed this commission thought they had enough evidence to ask some serious questions. Since no one, including it seems you, is interested in investigating the possiblity of crimes, I'm not interested in talking about irrefutable proof. I'm satisfied with the evidence enough to say that we need to change the way we do things.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 10:17:13 [Permalink]
|
I will not deny that schools and hospitals were hit. Your claim was that it was deliberate. You have failed to show that in any way. I never said the US was above the law nor did I imply it. But when you show made up war crimes i am going to call you on it. If you show me evidence of specific crimes I will reconsider. Until then I wait for evidence.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 10:34:19 [Permalink]
|
Of course it is deliberate. You can't bomb heavily populated areas to that degree and not know what you're doing. That's not what you mean by deliberate, but it of course was done with the knowledge that that would happen.
However, I made no claims of intent. Read what I wrote. You read what someone else wrote. I made no claims of intent, I was simply showing that schools and hospitals were in fact hit, which you denied. Then you upped the ante by talking about proof of intent. It wasn't my intent to talk about intent. If you want to know intent, then become a psychic.
Please admit that you said that schools and hospitals were not hit, and that you were wrong.
quote:
I will not deny that schools and hospitals were hit.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 10:41:16 [Permalink]
|
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm
I asked for proof about these specific charges. Why? Because they were very specific in their claims. In making those claims they should have some hard evidence to support them. I am betting that they don't, that this is some wishy-washy rights group that likes to make itself feel important by publishing rhetoric like this as if it actually meant something.
I would, you know, reconsider but I have to see evidence. Any.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 11:21:48 [Permalink]
|
Well, you have plenty of evidence, but whether or not it's enough to make any specific legal claims of intent, I'm not in a position to say. If you are asking for proof, ask them not me. I make no legal claims regarding those specific items, and I don't recall ever having made those specific claims. I simply showed it to you to show that you were wrong. Hospitals and schools were hit. Repeatedly. Despite your claims to the contrary. Then you decided instead of admitting you were wrong to up the ante by talking about intent.
If this were a court of law in the United States, they would be liable for any damage that they did. Someone who dies during a bank robbery is a victim of murder regardless of whether or not someone "meant" to kill anyone. Certainly the U.S. attack on Iraq was excessive and illegal (according to the U.N. Charter), so by those definitions, any killings at all must be murder. Then add the illegal sanctions (by the Geneva Convention and the U.N. Charter) and you have the definition of genocide.
Certainly, with that kind of terrorist bombing, the U.S. had to know what would happen. There is evidence to suggest that it was done deliberately to terrorize the population, but again, I make no legal claims regarding intent.
quote:
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm
I asked for proof about these specific charges.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 15:50:04 [Permalink]
|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20020506/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/international_court
According to this the US answers to no one. You just conveniently place the word "terrorist" in front of "bombing" but it's meaningless to me the way you use it. To you any act of war, whether it is in defense or not, is a war crime. You look at the claims of that group where the US is said to deliberately bomb civilian targets and need no evidence to support it. You accept it blindly. Is that skeptical?
I am not upping the ante when it comes to intent. That group claimed to know., but they are simply making a baseless claim. Or at least that's what I call it until I see ANY proof.
You need to make a case for war crimes beyond your "any aggression is a crime" to be taken seriously. You also need to look at a situation with a little less bias. You continue to leave out things like the invasion of Kuwait etc. Those are not small details.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 17:51:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
According to this the US answers to no one.
Exactly. The law is whatever the U.S. says that it is. Somehow to you that's a constructive idea.
quote:
You just conveniently place the word "terrorist" in front of "bombing" but it's meaningless to me the way you use it.
Of course it is, because you uncritically accept the idea that the U.S. cannot, by definition, do anything wrong.
quote:
To you any act of war, whether it is in defense or not, is a war crime.
No, it is a crime against humanity. But that isn't the criterion that I used to use the word "terrorist" or "genocide." I'm simply using the same criterion that you and the U.S. administrations use when they describe people they don't like doing what the U.S. itself has done many times before. You don't like it when the same definitions are used to apply to the U.S.
quote:
You look at the claims of that group where the US is said to deliberately bomb civilian targets and need no evidence to support it. You accept it blindly. Is that skeptical?
That's exactly the opposite of what I did say and you know it.
quote:
I am not upping the ante when it comes to intent. That group claimed to know., but they are simply making a baseless claim. Or at least that's what I call it until I see ANY proof.
Take it up with them, not me. You're backing away from your original statement, and that's your business. Don't lay that on me.
You have no idea if it's a baseless claim because you have no idea what they've claimed or why they claimed it. Do you call that skepticism?
quote:
You need to make a case for war crimes beyond your "any aggression is a crime" to be taken seriously. You also need to look at a situation with a little less bias. You continue to leave out things like the invasion of Kuwait etc. Those are not small details.
Or the invasion of Panama? Or the invasion of Lebanon?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 18:16:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Exactly. The law is whatever the U.S. says that it is. Somehow to you that's a constructive idea.
I'm just telling you how it is. Plain and simple.
quote:
Of course it is, because you uncritically accept the idea that the U.S. cannot, by definition, do anything wrong.[/quote[]
That's far from the truth. I know very well that the US did wrong in the past. But "wrong", as with everything else, depends upon perception. Most Americans think it was perfectly fine to drop the atomic bombs at the end of WWII. I used to think it was OK too but changed my opinion on that. To most Americans it was still fine and dandy. So you and I might go on and on about it being wrong and get laughed at by 250 million other Americans. Gorgo, you and I do not get to define what is right and wrong for everyone. You can do your best to convince other people of your views but there is no absolute right and wrong here.
[quote]No, it is a crime against humanity. But that isn't the criterion that I used to use the word "terrorist" or "genocide." I'm simply using the same criterion that you and the U.S. administrations use when they describe people they don't like doing what the U.S. itself has done many times before. You don't like it when the same definitions are used to apply to the U.S.
No Gorgo, you call everything a crime against humanity. At least everything the US does no matter what the provocation. I keep thinking of the boy that cried wolf. You have no sense of scale.
I am perfectly willing to look at any US act and, if I think it's a crime I will concede that it's a crime. But every act of war is not a crime to me. Carpet bombing a city may or not be a crime. It would depend on the circumstances as many things do. Deliberately bombing a hospital would not be a crime if there was a military HQ under it. I am not claiming there is or was one. I am just saying that bombing a hospital is not necessarily a crime. If a government puts a military HQ under a hospital then they are the criminals. Not the people that might find it necessary to bomb it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
