Guns In The Closet (Political)

[cantdog]

Nazis and Vichy would round up civilians. They had a ten-for-one rule when a German soldier was killed (by the Resistance that they had to deal with), and they executed ten random people by firing squad. there were occasions when they killed by hundreds.

That's collective punishment, and I think it became a Nürnberg issue because the Germans did it and we didn't. We occupied a country which had surrendered and was surrounded by allied countries. Important people and SS got new papers and fled, and resistance was minimal on the western side of the line, so we didn't have to. On the other hand, we bombed whole towns flat, and so did they, so slaughtering civilians was not a Nürnberg crime. Many of these atrocious war practices are crimes or not crimes only for reasons like that, although the POW things everyone takes seriously.

The United States, conveniently for them, does not recognize the World Court, and does not acknowledge international law generally if it be seen to limit sovereignty in any way. Israel, fortunately for them, doesn't have to sweat international sanction because the US will veto and protect them, no matter what they do.

So forget Geneva discussions and legal discussions. If you are right, even, all you achieve is a talking point.

Guerillas may certainly be killed, although except for the Cheney administration rules, no one is supposed to be tortured. Better than half the dead at Qana, this time, were children, and there were no rockets from Qana, but the Israelis, as I say, are uniquely permitted to do anything whatsoever. So certainly they can kill or torture, or flay or roast any guerilla or dog or baby or ninety-year-old grandmother they like, since no legal action can touch them, so long as our policy about Israel stands.

The current plan is MOAB strikes against any and all objects in a given area. The theory seems to be that it will make the ground advance easier.

Sounds reprehensible to me, and to the rest of the world. And to the remaining Lebanese I'm sure it will justify most any reprisals they can dream up. To the remaining Hizb'Allah, it will be a green light to do anything they can think of to any Israeli they can manage to reach. Politically, this kind of thing is a losing strategy, but the level of mutual fury is so high now that no one seems to give a shit.

They could look across the way into Iraq and see how much success we are enjoying using many similar tactics, even with less wholesale ferocity and less public declarations that, for instance, "everyone in x area must and shall die." But they won't, because they don't have to and they don't care how determined their enemies become.

I really don't see why you are defending this kind of stupidity.

 

[R. Richard]

Guerillas may certainly be killed, although except for the Cheney administration rules, no one is supposed to be tortured. Better than half the dead at Qana, this time, were children, and there were no rockets from Qana, but the Israelis, as I say, are uniquely permitted to do anything whatsoever. So certainly they can kill or torture, or flay or roast any guerilla or dog or baby or ninety-year-old grandmother they like, since no legal action can touch them, so long as our policy about Israel stands.

No one outside Qana knows exactly what happened at Qana AFAIK. The Israelis claim to have hit Qana at about 1AM. The Israeli stike was ordered becase the building was being used by Hizb'Allah. The building collapsed about 8AM.

Your comments about Israeli killing and torture are so far out of line that it is difficult to understand why you say things taht are obviously untrue.

The current plan is MOAB strikes against any and all objects in a given area. The theory seems to be that it will make the ground advance easier.

Interesting that you have the Israeli war plan in your possession. Where did you get it?

Sounds reprehensible to me, and to the rest of the world. And to the remaining Lebanese I'm sure it will justify most any reprisals they can dream up. To the remaining Hizb'Allah, it will be a green light to do anything they can think of to any Israeli they can manage to reach. Politically, this kind of thing is a losing strategy, but the level of mutual fury is so high now that no one seems to give a shit.

Politically, anything anyone has to do with Hizb'Allah is a losing strategy. Hizb'Allah has, by their own admission, invaded Israel and taken captives that they refuse to let ithe International Red Cross see. Hizb'Allah has caused Israel to strike back and invade Lebanon. The resulting war has caused great destruction to Lebanon. Hizb'Allah rocket strikes have caused great damage to Israeli civilians. Your international community wrings their hands each time Israeli action kills civilians in the middle of a fire fight. The international community is strangely silent when Hizb'Allah rocket strikes kill Israeli civilians.

I really don't see why you are defending this kind of stupidity.

Let me see if I can explain my position. The US will not submit to the will of the World Court. Actually, the US CAN'T submit to the will of the World Court. The problem is a document called the US Constitution. If you want the US to submit to the World Court, then change the US Constitution.

There is a UN force currently in Lebanon. The UN force will do nothing against Hizb'Allah. A UN observer, who is now dead as a result of an Israeli air strike, sent an e-mail to a news service complaining that Hizb'Allah was using his observation post as a cover to launch rockets against Israel.

It is an accepted fact by everyone but the Arab press that Hizb'Allah is figthing from among civilians, in violation of the rules of war. There have been prictures and videos of the violations.

No one in the world, save the Israelis and, to a small extent, the US cares about the deaths of Israelis.

Where is your World Court when Hizb'Allah routinely violates the laws of war?

Oh yes, the citizens of Legbanon support Hizb'Allah. Since they support Hizb'Aaalh, could they quit bellyaching about collateral damage from thewar Hizb'Allah started?

 

[cantdog]

As you say, you need the news from Qana to know what's going on in Qana. That's why I have been reading it. Comma.

Want some excerpts? Links?

As to the policy of Israel, it is public knowledge since Thursday's broadcast. Here it is again:

Israeli justice minister Haim Ramon announced on Israeli army radio Thursday that "all those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."

Justifying the collective punishment of people in southern Lebanon,
Ramon added, "In order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers
battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be
flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in."

Haim Ramon's speech to the effect that all the half-million people in south Lebanon were terrorists and that massive strikes were planned is completely accessible if you read the news.

It's a falsehood. But he did say it.

You say: "Your comments about Israeli killing and torture are so far out of line that it is difficult to understand why you say things taht are obviously untrue."

Whereas, I wasn't, in that paragraph, claiming that Israel did anything to any grandmothers. My statement was that they could, and they could do it without fear of legal action. They have this power because of the actions and policy stance of the US. I said that three ways. They can do whatever they like with the impunity we lend them.

But I could have said something about grandmothers, because Israel did bomb grandmothers, in Qana. And 37 children. And Red Cross ambulances going in to help. Look it up yourself, on the Mother Jones website. They get dispatches from Lebanon and dispatches from Iraq. It's not hard to obtain this data.

The UN force in Lebanon is also being bombed by Israel. That too was all over the news last week, CBC in Canada. Want links?

You keep going on about the Geneva idea of yours about fighting from among civilians. You say it is your position.

The Hizb'Allah are civilians. Comma. You say yourself they wear no uniform and no insignia. You say they represent no state. Well? You only need to think one step further, dude.

That's because they are civilians. Who is a civilian if not a person not affiliated with a military or government organization? And I have conceded already
that "Guerillas may certainly be killed," I said it in my last post. You even quoted it.

So why do you keep on about it? Kill your guerillas and have done with the harping. God. Yes, they fight from a civilian place. Kill 'em if you can, so long as it helps your cause.

Because what I also said about killing guerillas is that it may be sensible to reconsider the idea. I said it had political consequences. You said "having anything to do with Hizb'Allah" has political consequences. Yep. But you meant here, half a world away. I meant there, in the midst of the raging stewpit of hatred and death.

And a wise policy would, perhaps, cause enrollment and interest in Hizb'Allah to roll off. If you could make them seem to be railing against an Israel which has been humane, which has helped rebuild Lebanon after their twenty-year occupation, then you could make Hizb'Allah seem strident and misguided. Peace, water, food, prosperity, health care, these things always cause interest in rebellion to fall off.

How do we know that what Israel did was stupid?

According to the poll the other day, current actions have had entirely the opposite effect. And therefore, note this, therefore this indiscriminate war of Israel's is a bad policy for Israel. It strengthened their enemy and it has left them politically more isolated in the world at large.

The real criterion by which to judge a state's actions is the benefit of those actions to the state. By that yardstick they have made a whale of a mistake.

 

[R. Richard]

The UN force in Lebanon is also being bombed by Israel. That too was all over the news last week, CBC in Canada. Want links?

You might read my post. One of the UN guys killed in the Israeli attack sent an e-mail top a news organization stating that Hizb'Allah was using his post as a shield when they launched some missles.

The Hizb'Allah are civilians. Comma. You say yourself they wear no uniform and no insignia. You say they represent no state. Well? You only need to think one step further, dude.

That's because they are civilians. Who is a civilian if not a person not affiliated with a military or government organization? And I have conceded already
that "Guerillas may certainly be killed," I said it in my last post. You even quoted it.

Hizb'Allah are NOT civilians. Armed personnel in a war zone are either military or they are bandits. To be military, armed personnel do not need uniforms, but they are REQUIRED to have identifying insignia. Hizb'Allah does not have uniforms, nor do they have identifying insignia. Hizb'Allah are not guerillas. they are bandits/outlaws.

As to the wisdom of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, what else would you have Israel do? UN resolution 1559 already demands the disarmament of Hizb'Allah. The UN has done NOTHING to enforce resolution 1559. In fact, I would challenge you to tell me what the UN forces are doing in Lebanon.

 

[CharleyH]

You might read my post. One of the UN guys killed in the Israeli attack sent an e-mail top a news organization stating that Hizb'Allah was using his post as a shield when they launched some missles.


Hizb'Allah are NOT civilians. Armed personnel in a war zone are either military or they are bandits. To be military, armed personnel do not need uniforms, but they are REQUIRED to have identifying insignia. Hizb'Allah does not have uniforms, nor do they have identifying insignia. Hizb'Allah are not guerillas. they are bandits/outlaws.

As to the wisdom of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, what else would you have Israel do?

WTF? do you actually know what you are talking about R.R.? WOW.

 

[MzDeviancy]

OK, I'll play your game.
1) The Mexicans have invaded Texas with the intention of taking it back because they feel that it is still part of their country. The Mexican army is pouring over the border and the Texans are doing the best they can. You check the news reports for one area where the Mexican army is having a really hard time you can strongly suspect ol' R. Richard done got a militia together.

2) The Mexicans have invaded Texas with the intention of taking it back because Texans are "killin' Meskins" for no real reason. I will still resist the Mexican army. However, I will resist only because I don't think the Mexican army can do a proper job of stringing up the rogue Texans. Ol' R. Richard knows how to string up people who kill other humans for free because of the other human's race/national origin.

Notice how easily the redneck lingo flows from your fingertips?

 

[cantdog]

About the Mexicans..

When I envisioned, at random, an invasion through Texas, I was thinking "soft underbelly." Possibly America's Atlantic Wall would be too strongly held, and the invader would decide to come in through the Gulf.

Our country's imperial ambitions, bad enough when confined to our own hemisphere, may eventually come to alarm the world at large. Especially so when the people in charge are bungling it all so.

The Democrats offer little hope, I'm afraid. Both parties want to support empire. When I went to school, that was the subtext to history class: a great historical civilization always produces a great empire. The New American Century is just that: a realization that the time for an American global empire is at hand.

We are in an unusual place, in the context of the last century of historical time. We spend more on our military than the entire rest of the world combined, and there is no single national entity which can challenge us, directly, on a military level. Especially, if I may say so, with regard to the United States Navy.

China is an amazing place. During the Chincom counterattack of the Korea affair it was calculated that China could have marched in column, ten abreast, fully equipped soldiers into Korea indefinitely. That is, they had enough population and industrial capacity to keep that up for eternity without any diminution of population.

In Asia, then, within their scope, they were completely awesome. But! They could not retake Taiwan. Why? Because we opposed it! From the entire way across the broad Pacific, we could deploy enough military force to prevent a Communist takeover of an island just off their own shores. They have power, but they cannot project it. That's the effect of the US Navy.

So here we are. Unbeatable by anybody. They cannot invade. Forget it.

No single country, anyway. There was a lot of talk, last year, about the threat, ultimately, which so gigantic (over a billion!) a nation as China poses, long term. But the more immediate, more concrete threat is Europe. We don't emphasize it, even for the reasons that they were serving by talking about China last year (which was to engender fear in the electorate here). But the only force which could stymie us, realistically, is the EU. They have no reason to, of course. Not yet. But look what Bush and Cheney have done in a few short years toward alienating them!

What I foresee will not happen this year or next. No, it will be for my children and grandchildren to bear. But soon or late, the world will have to take serious note of the fact that we are trying to run the world.

Remember what happened the last time some country had visions of global domination? The Thousand Year Reich? The Axis Powers? The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere?

Tojo and Hitler bade fair to take it all. And the remainder of us who had not yet been conquered had to make great sacrifices to stop them. We were reluctant. But they kept pushing! Mongolia, Korea, Norway, Austria, France, Poland, Indonesia, Nanking, Ethiopia, Roumania, Malaya-- the list kept growing! After just so long, they could no longer be ignored, no longer be reasoned with. Everyone had to bite the bullet and undertake, at enormous cost and with extraordinary effort, a project to halt the global empire of the Axis. Millions died. Trillions were spent. A generation spent their lives in the work, and the global empire envisioned by those fascists was brought down.

How will it be when the world grows weary of watching America try to run the entire world to suit itself? Do we not already hog the lion's share of the resources of the whole planet?

The EU was the army I saw coming through Texas, RR, not some rinky dink army of Mexicans alone. The Allied Forces of the twenty first century doing its best to stop the American global ambitions. That too is the pattern of history. Empires do not last forever. And the only credible threat we face today is a galvanized EU.

All Bush had to do, all any President since Reagan has had to do, is to avoid being SUCH a pain in the world's ass that they would feel they had no choice but to combine against us. He fucked that up before 9-11! He repudiated the arms treaties. The Nuclear Test Ban, the Kyoto thing, any treaty, every treaty. He bumbled around the world making a laughingstock of himself, but underneath the mockery of the world for his clumsiness and bizarre talk was the realization that here was a young ass with too much sheer power and no rein, no check, no intelligent restraint on it.

One day, RR, the alarm of the world will hit a particular tipping point, and they will feel they have to combine to resist us or go under. Can we not adopt a more restrained foreign policy? Do you want to watch your children fight a world war to preserve the very existence of America?

 

[Matadore]

War is war...Murder is murder.

Hizb'Allah are NOT civilians. Armed personnel in a war zone are either military or they are bandits. To be military, armed personnel do not need uniforms, but they are REQUIRED to have identifying insignia. Hizb'Allah does not have uniforms, nor do they have identifying insignia. Hizb'Allah are not guerillas. they are bandits/outlaws.

Perhaps you have heard of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice?

It is what the military (US) uses in lieu of civil law. It governs the behavior of military personnel both in combat and in other times that they are on active duty. It has nothing to do with the current Israeli Conflict in Lebanon. But it does tend to discredit your bombastic rhetoric about the conduct of the US military. Until you get some training on the subject you will look like a pompous fool when you attempt to discourse on ROE and the Geneva Convention (which the US has not signed or agreed to abide by...although we did honor it in principal until the present administration decided to go criminal).

But you probably already knew all of that. Maybe due to your startling display of hubris or ego or both, you seem to think that an accepted debating technique is to repeat your arguments louder and more strident with only token regard to facts and procedure of logic.

I may have overlooked the information, but nowhere could I find the permission for field commanders to cut the throats of captured prisoners.

Article 118—Murder

(1) Premeditated murder.
(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;
(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;
(c) That the killing was unlawful; and
(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused had a premeditated design to kill.

Explanation.
(1) In general. Killing a human being is unlawful when done without justification or excuse. See R.C.M. 916. Whether an unlawful killing constitutes murder or a lesser offense depends upon the circumstances. The offense is committed at the place of the act or omission although the victim may have died elsewhere. Whether death occurs at the time of the accused’s act or omission, or at some time thereafter, it must have followed from an injury received by the victim which resulted from the act or omission.
(2) Premeditated murder.
(a) Premeditation. A murder is not premeditated unless the thought of taking life was consciously conceived and the act or omission by which it was taken was intended. Premeditated murder is murder committed after the formation of a specific intent to kill someone and consideration of the act intended. It is not necessary that the intention to kill have been entertained for any particular or consider-able length of time. When a fixed purpose to kill has been deliberately formed, it is immaterial how soon afterwards it is put into execution. The existence of premeditation may be inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Enemy. “Enemy” includes organized forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations. “Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other.

The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).

 

[cantdog]

'Strue, Matadore. He doesn't progress, he repeats. News from Qana, interviews with people doing rescue work? Not interested. Ehud Olmert says Qana was Hizb'Allah's fault, so that's the end of it. CNN International refers consistently to Hizb'Allah as a "militia" but here in the US, on CNN they are always a "terrorist organization." Same company. Different message.

Your reason is only as useful as the facts you have to work with. I used to believe the news, myself, until Reagan and his weird distortions about central America. I had the advantage of speaking at some length with people who had been there, but the lies were exposed for all to see during the Ollie North thing. I knew then that I had to start paying attention to other countries' news sources if I wanted to know anything.

I can get CBC on the tube here, because I am in Maine. I can get Brit papers online, and the BBC is on public radio. And you have to make the effort, because the ordinary mainstream news sources don't even ask anyone but the government. They have a roundtable discussion on Hardball, and there are two American generals and a former colonel there to discuss it. Read the Times, you can play "the government says:" Go down through the news article and read just the attributions, the little blurbs where they identify the sources. It's the government better than 80% of the time. Some days you have to read three articles before anyone else whatsoever is mentioned in attribution.

 

[cantdog]

RR, you've even argued with me about apostasy, which is an English word and can be looked up by anyone. Thereafter, anyone could begin to use the word appropriately.

 

[R. Richard]

Perhaps you have heard of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice?

It is what the military (US) uses in lieu of civil law. It governs the behavior of military personnel both in combat and in other times that they are on active duty. It has nothing to do with the current Israeli Conflict in Lebanon. But it does tend to discredit your bombastic rhetoric about the conduct of the US military. Until you get some training on the subject you will look like a pompous fool when you attempt to discourse on ROE and the Geneva Convention (which the US has not signed or agreed to abide by...although we did honor it in principal until the present administration decided to go criminal).

No, I have not heard of the "Uniformed Code of Military Justice." I am guessing that it is a construct of your own mind and nothing else.

Matadore, I want to calmly address a very serious issue. The issue involves you. I am asking for the courtesy of a reasoned reply.

I am a US military officer. In a combat situation am leading a US military patrol behind enemy lines in order to gather information [military intelligence]. Suddenly, one of the men [supposedly] under my command wants to debate the rightness of the causes of the combat situation and the legal authority of the US military high command in a loud and strident voice. If I read your interpretation of military justice, I am supposed to immediately and on the spot convene a proper Hearing Board and address the issues raised by the man [supposedly] under my command. [Matadore, if you believe what it is that I have just stated, you are insane. Worse, in a combat situation, you would be a clear and present danger to the men under my command. Don't try to tell me that the situation has never arisen in the US military. Do cite me actual procedings that resulted from the actions of officer(s) in charge in such a patrol.] TIA.

I have never served in the US military. I have served in several military organizations. I can tell you, without fear of infomed contradiction, that the standard way to handle the military situation I have described is a "drumhead court martial." [Usually the officer does not actually use a drumhead.] If you do have access to a current, active US military officer with combat experience, he can describe to you the standard corrective action.

 

[R. Richard]

RR, you've even argued with me about apostasy, which is an English word and can be looked up by anyone. Thereafter, anyone could begin to use the word appropriately.

Cantdog:
I was unaware that the English dictionary definition of apostasy applied to Muslims. Perhaps you could cite me the surrah(s) in the Koran that applies. Then I could tell my Muslim associates how to "appropriately" use the word [and its derivates such as "apostate."] TIA.

[Perhaps you could also tell me how to peacefully prevent said Muslim associates from trying to kill me for "disrespect to Islam. TIA.]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Cantdog:
I was unaware that the English dictionary definition of apostasy applied to Muslims. Perhaps you could cite me the surrah(s) in the Koran that applies. Then I could tell my Muslim associates how to "appropriately" use the word [and its derivates such as "apostate."] TIA.

[Perhaps you could also tell me how to peacefully prevent said Muslim associates from trying to kill me for "disrespect to Islam. TIA.]

This is the definition that I come up with:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9008041

My dictionary doesn't limit it to Christianity but this one does. Heresy might be a better word than apostasy.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is very real. It is usually shortened to UCMJ or referred to as "the little red book". Any former member or present member of the armed services is very aware of it. I don't know what it has to do with the current discussion, though. It only applies fo US forces, not to those of Israel.

I hope the discussion doesn't degerate into an argument about definitions.

 

[wazhazhe]

No, I have not heard of the "Uniformed Code of Military Justice." I am guessing that it is a construct of your own mind and nothing else.

The UCMJ is a federal law that applies to all members of the US military.

 

[R. Richard]

This is the definition that I come up with:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9008041

My dictionary doesn't limit it to Christianity but this one does. Heresy might be a better word than apostasy.

What I was trying to point out is that the word "apostasy" and its various derivatives means different things to different faiths. Cantdog is trying to use the Christian form of apostasy and apply it to Muslims.

The Unformed Code of Military Justice is very real. It is usually shortened to UCMJ or referred to as "the little red book". Any former member or present member of the armed services is very aware of it.

There is no such thing as the "Unformed Code of Military Justice" or the "Uniformed Code of Military Justice." Do a google search.

There is a code of military justice that applies to normal situations in the United States army. As I pointed out, the normal code of military justice does not apply to all situations in the field, not even in the United States army. [Let us assume for a moment that you are the field commander of a unit and one of your "men" gets up and starts trying to convince the rest of the men that they are all gonna' die and the only hope is to turn tail and run. I will state [and ask for comment by present or former US military personnel] that a normal approach to the problem is to beat the crap out of the guy if the commander is big enough or to shoot the coward as necessary. You aint gonna' find that in your code of military justice.]

JMNTHO.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Try here....

UCMJ

which was found via this...

Google Search...

 

[Boxlicker101]

About the Mexicans..

When I envisioned, at random, an invasion through Texas, I was thinking "soft underbelly." Possibly America's Atlantic Wall would be too strongly held, and the invader would decide to come in through the Gulf.

Our country's imperial ambitions, bad enough when confined to our own hemisphere, may eventually come to alarm the world at large. Especially so when the people in charge are bungling it all so.

The Democrats offer little hope, I'm afraid. Both parties want to support empire. When I went to school, that was the subtext to history class: a great historical civilization always produces a great empire. The New American Century is just that: a realization that the time for an American global empire is at hand.

We are in an unusual place, in the context of the last century of historical time. We spend more on our military than the entire rest of the world combined, and there is no single national entity which can challenge us, directly, on a military level. Especially, if I may say so, with regard to the United States Navy.

China is an amazing place. During the Chincom counterattack of the Korea affair it was calculated that China could have marched in column, ten abreast, fully equipped soldiers into Korea indefinitely. That is, they had enough population and industrial capacity to keep that up for eternity without any diminution of population.

In Asia, then, within their scope, they were completely awesome. But! They could not retake Taiwan. Why? Because we opposed it! From the entire way across the broad Pacific, we could deploy enough military force to prevent a Communist takeover of an island just off their own shores. They have power, but they cannot project it. That's the effect of the US Navy.

So here we are. Unbeatable by anybody. They cannot invade. Forget it.

No single country, anyway. There was a lot of talk, last year, about the threat, ultimately, which so gigantic (over a billion!) a nation as China poses, long term. But the more immediate, more concrete threat is Europe. We don't emphasize it, even for the reasons that they were serving by talking about China last year (which was to engender fear in the electorate here). But the only force which could stymie us, realistically, is the EU. They have no reason to, of course. Not yet. But look what Bush and Cheney have done in a few short years toward alienating them!

What I foresee will not happen this year or next. No, it will be for my children and grandchildren to bear. But soon or late, the world will have to take serious note of the fact that we are trying to run the world.

Remember what happened the last time some country had visions of global domination? The Thousand Year Reich? The Axis Powers? The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere?

Tojo and Hitler bade fair to take it all. And the remainder of us who had not yet been conquered had to make great sacrifices to stop them. We were reluctant. But they kept pushing! Mongolia, Korea, Norway, Austria, France, Poland, Indonesia, Nanking, Ethiopia, Roumania, Malaya-- the list kept growing! After just so long, they could no longer be ignored, no longer be reasoned with. Everyone had to bite the bullet and undertake, at enormous cost and with extraordinary effort, a project to halt the global empire of the Axis. Millions died. Trillions were spent. A generation spent their lives in the work, and the global empire envisioned by those fascists was brought down.

How will it be when the world grows weary of watching America try to run the entire world to suit itself? Do we not already hog the lion's share of the resources of the whole planet?

The EU was the army I saw coming through Texas, RR, not some rinky dink army of Mexicans alone. The Allied Forces of the twenty first century doing its best to stop the American global ambitions. That too is the pattern of history. Empires do not last forever. And the only credible threat we face today is a galvanized EU.

All Bush had to do, all any President since Reagan has had to do, is to avoid being SUCH a pain in the world's ass that they would feel they had no choice but to combine against us. He fucked that up before 9-11! He repudiated the arms treaties. The Nuclear Test Ban, the Kyoto thing, any treaty, every treaty. He bumbled around the world making a laughingstock of himself, but underneath the mockery of the world for his clumsiness and bizarre talk was the realization that here was a young ass with too much sheer power and no rein, no check, no intelligent restraint on it.

One day, RR, the alarm of the world will hit a particular tipping point, and they will feel they have to combine to resist us or go under. Can we not adopt a more restrained foreign policy? Do you want to watch your children fight a world war to preserve the very existence of America?

I would take exception to a couple of things that are included in this post. The US is not an imperialistic power, and hasn't been one for about a century.

Following WW2, the US began disbanding its large military until the threat of the USSR became obvious. Thereafter, the primary goal of the US and UK was to thwart the global ambitions of the USSR. They, not the Axis nations, were the most recent nation bent on empire, and they were successful until the allies started to oppose them.

Sometimes the opposition was military intervention, such as in Korea, Viet Nam and Granada, and sometimes it was successful. Sometimes it was the overthrow of another government that was seen as a client or ally of the USSR, such as in Iran and Nicaragua and Chile, or the prevention of the overthow of a friendly government, such as in El Salvador. Sometimes it was in the formation of alliances, such as NATO or SEATO. Most actions were defensive or responsive in nature.

The allies lost some of the battles but eventually won the war. The Soviet Union broke up into its components and some of its satellites or nations it occupied are now American allies. At no time was there an intention of building an empire; it was always to stop the USSR from doing so.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What I was trying to point out is that the word "apostasy" and its various derivatives means different things to different faiths. Cantdog is trying to use the Christian form of apostasy and apply it to Muslims.


There is no such thing as the "Unformed Code of Military Justice" or the "Uniformed Code of Military Justice." Do a google search.

There is a code of military justice that applies to normal situations in the United States army. As I pointed out, the normal code of military justice does not apply to all situations in the field, not even in the United States army. [Let us assume for a moment that you are the field commander of a unit and one of your "men" gets up and starts trying to convince the rest of the men that they are all gonna' die and the only hope is to turn tail and run. I will state [and ask for comment by present or former US military personnel] that a normal approach to the problem is to beat the crap out of the guy if the commander is big enough or to shoot the coward as necessary. You aint gonna' find that in your code of military justice.]

JMNTHO.

Tou're right. I had a typo in my post, which I have now corrected. The proper term is "The Uniform Code of Military Justice" and it would not always apply in combat situations such as you describe.

 

[R. Richard]

Tou're right. I had a typo in my post, which I have now corrected. The proper term is "The Uniform Code of Military Justice" and it would not always apply in combat situations such as you describe.

Boxlicker101:
Thank you! The point that I have been trying to make is that you really need to have been in front line combat to understand how things really work out there. Books and rules are fine behind the lines, but the front lines work differently. [I don't support the wanton killing of civilians! However, when you find a half dozen young men wandering around a war zone, particularly at night and you also find a half dozen Kalashnikovs in the bushes, you can connect the dots for yourself. This last is particularly easy when you separate the guys and get a half dozen different stories.]

Also, as a note to others who have entered the discussion, the UCMJ is intended as a document to control the conduct of US armed forces. The UCMJ is ultimately based upon the US constitution. If you want to apply US law to enemy combatants, please read Article III, Section 3 of the US constitution. [Yeah the heading is Treason.]

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Boxlicker101:
Thank you! The point that I have been trying to make is that you really need to have been in front line combat to understand how things really work out there. Books and rules are fine behind the lines, but the front lines work differently. [I don't support the wanton killing of civilians! However, when you find a half dozen young men wandering around a war zone, particularly at night and you also find a half dozen Kalashnikovs in the bushes, you can connect the dots for yourself. This last is particularly easy when you separate the guys and get a half dozen different stories.]

Also, as a note to others who have entered the discussion, the UCMJ is intended as a document to control the conduct of US armed forces. The UCMJ is ultimately based upon the US constitution. If you want to apply US law to enemy combatants, please read Article III, Section 3 of the US constitution. [Yeah the heading is Treason.]

Yep it only applies to the US Military and any prisoners the Military has under their control.

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
...

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

And I especially like this one...

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

 

[R. Richard]

Yep it only applies to the US Military and any prisoners the Military has under their control.

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
...

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

And I especially like this one...

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

Zeb:
Note: Prisoners of war. Not everyone who is taken prisoner is a prisoner of war, at least not under the Geneva Convention. Armed people who are not in uniform and do not display visible, indentifying insignia are NOT prisoners of war.

I wonder at Paragraph (10). I suspect it is intended to apply to reporters, neutral observers and such who are assigned to and accompany armed forces in the field.

 

[cantdog]

I wonder at Paragraph (10). I suspect it is intended to apply to reporters, neutral observers and such who are assigned to and accompany armed forces in the field.

Or camp followers. Women, scavengers. Field hospitals staffed by civilians. Who knows?

 

[cantdog]

I would take exception to a couple of things that are included in this post. The US is not an imperialistic power, and hasn't been one for about a century.

Following WW2, the US began disbanding its large military until the threat of the USSR became obvious. Thereafter, the primary goal of the US and UK was to thwart the global ambitions of the USSR. They, not the Axis nations, were the most recent nation bent on empire, and they were successful until the allies started to oppose them.

Sometimes the opposition was military intervention, such as in Korea, Viet Nam and Granada, and sometimes it was successful. Sometimes it was the overthrow of another government that was seen as a client or ally of the USSR, such as in Iran and Nicaragua and Chile, or the prevention of the overthow of a friendly government, such as in El Salvador. Sometimes it was in the formation of alliances, such as NATO or SEATO. Most actions were defensive or responsive in nature.

The allies lost some of the battles but eventually won the war. The Soviet Union broke up into its components and some of its satellites or nations it occupied are now American allies. At no time was there an intention of building an empire; it was always to stop the USSR from doing so.

After WW II, the country went onto a permanent war footing with regard to having millions under arms, full capacity production of arms, and the like. Under Truman. The disbanding after the First World War was seen as a mistake, since there had been a Great Depression after the First World War, and the boost of wartime production had been the thing which finally brought us all out of the Depression. Business interests were extremely interested in maintaining the production at wartime levels, and lobbied Truman about it constantly. The argument from the Depression was one which Truman's cabinet thought well of, too.

Truman wasn't President very long, Box. There weren't many months of disbanding going on. And the Catholics were still rabidly anti-communist, and everyone was courting the Catholic vote. The church was still angry that Roosevelt had let the godless commies have Poland, one of the most devout Catholic states in Europe. Sheen was a personal friend of Hoover, and Hoover began collecting data on commies even before the war. Hell, Sheen and Coughlin, especially Coughlin, were pro-fascist. That's how much they hated communism. Father Coughlin was screaming about allying with communism even in 1942, and he had been very pro-Hitler before the war, because Hitler was opposing, murdering, communists.

And Stalin was, of course, one of the biggest murderous dickheads of all history. His death totals probably beat Genghis all hollow even before the purge in Ukraine. Churchill warned Truman repeatedly about him, and made a speech about an iron curtain before both houses of the American congress, right after the war had ended. His view was that the isolationism of America after the First World War had been the big mistake, and he hoped to influence the giant superpower. He always spoke of the great bonds which linked the English Speaking Peoples. He used the commie menace to leverage the Americans into staying on a war footing. And to become involved in European politics, taking a direction which the English Speaking Peoples would of course decide on.

Then, too, Truman had sole ownership of the A-Bomb. This was leverage he felt he could use, on the world stage. To be credible, he needed to keep the armed forces up to strength, since he actually wasn't building any new bombs, just letting on that he was.

There were a lot of reasons for the cold war to be chosen as a national priority, but the chief one was business looking for wartime prosperity to continue, and the opportunity to throw our newly-minted atomic weight around.

I think you ought to talk to the people in Latin America, Box, before you claim we haven't been an imperialist power. We occupied and ran directly lots of states, like Haiti, like the Dominican Republic, and for years, sometimes. We re-invaded every time these so-called "independent" states chose the wrong leader or made the wrong policy. American interests were at stake, so we remade their governments to suit our purposes. And American interests meant American business interests. United Fruit in Cuba and elsewhere, Anaconda Copper in Chile.

 

[MzDeviancy]

Cantdog:
I was unaware that the English dictionary definition of apostasy applied to Muslims. Perhaps you could cite me the surrah(s) in the Koran that applies. Then I could tell my Muslim associates how to "appropriately" use the word [and its derivates such as "apostate."] TIA.

[Perhaps you could also tell me how to peacefully prevent said Muslim associates from trying to kill me for "disrespect to Islam. TIA.]

As a Muslim with many 'Muslim associates' please allow me to express my disbelief that you can actually say something like that without realizing how absolutely fucking redneck it is.

I'm not sure whether it's funny or just sad how it's always people like you who constantly insult Muslims - either intentionally or otherwise - that constantly spout rhetoric about how Muslims should be so grateful they're allowed to live in North America, and how can we not be grateful for the wonderful treatment we receive here.

Your image of Muslims is obviously derived from what you see on CNN. Maybe you should tell your 'Muslim associates' that you view them as such an angry and violent people that you think they would be moved to uncontrollable rage simply by hearing an incorrect definition of the word 'apostate'.

You are a piece of work.

 

[R. Richard]

Your image of Muslims is obviously derived from what you see on CNN. Maybe you should tell your 'Muslim associates' that you view them as such an angry and violent people that you think they would be moved to uncontrollable rage simply by hearing an incorrect definition of the word 'apostate'.

You are a piece of work.

From Wikipedia: What constitutes apostasy in Islam

Regarding monotheism and polytheism
1) A public declaration or conduct that denies Islam, its beliefs, symbols or its principal actors such as statements as "I believe in gods other than Allah", or "God has a material form".
2) Worshipping an idol.
3) Denying the existence of God (atheism).
4) Saying the world has always existed from eternity, in such a way that it denies the existence of God as a creator.
5) Saying that the world is everlasting and without end, in such a way that it could be interpreted as a denial of resurrection.
6) Believing in reincarnation into this world, in such a way that it could be interpreted as a denial of resurrection.

From 1), a Christian or Jew is an apostate for Muslims. However, said Christian or Jew is not an apostate in his/her own religion.
From 2), most Catholics are apostates for Muslims due to the crucifix they wear. Catholics do not regard their use of the crucifix in their worship as apostacy.
From 3) or 4) an aethiest is an apostate. To at least a Christian, aethiest is NOT an apostate.
6) I think that the Hindu belief in reincarnation into this world could be interpreted as a denial of resurrection.

MzDeviancy:
Correct me if I am wrong. If I say Allah is not a god, I am an apostate to a Muslim, but not to at least most other religions. If I worship a golden aardvark, I am an apsotate to a Muslim, but not to a Christian. If I am an aethiest, I am an apostate to a Muslim, but not to a Christian or a Jew. What I was trying to point out is that the [American/English] dictionary definition of apostate [and closely related words] does not really apply to Muslims.

If I accept Thugge [the one true aspect of the Goddess Kali] as my Goddess, I am an apostate to a Muslim for my religious belief and a secular criminal to a Christian. [I am not sure if a Muslim also believes a Thug to be a secular criminal. In any case, under the Sharia, the difference between an apostate and a secular criminal would appear to be insignificant.]