h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Not to mention the fact that if we had done such a thing (until recently there was a federal law against assasinating heads of state)"
-Sarge Flipper
When and how did the law change and for who? I missed that!

It is the more moral choice IMO.
Saddam and Osama are the executioners.

Bush said dead or alive so I do not understand the line.
Kill one that you absolutely want gone or kill a 100,000-3,000,000?(number just for example)

I think Terrorist should be International Criminals. Terrorists should not continue to be given the power to bring on wars in their own or other Nations as in this case.

Why not take it to an International court?
We need criminal and war behavior more defined and controlled in a National and International way whether we have an International Court or not.

What do you think about that ES and Della?

*****
To Blaue- I always thought that is why the US is considered an experiment. We are a new and capitalistic Republic built on democratic principles.

"Not to mention the fact that if we had done such a thing (until recently there was a federal law against assasinating heads of state)"
-Sarge Flipper
When and how did the law change and for who? I missed that!

It is the more moral choice IMO.
Saddam and Osama are the executioners.

Bush said dead or alive so I do not understand the line.
Kill one that you absolutely want gone or kill a 100,000-3,000,000?(number just for example)

I think Terrorist should be International Criminals. Terrorists should not continue to be given the power to bring on wars in their own or other Nations as in this case.(assuming you believe the Iraq War is about terrorist links)

Why not take it to an International court?
We need criminal and war behavior more defined and controlled in a National and International way whether we have an International Court or not.

What do you think about that ES and Della?

*****
To Blaue- I always thought that is why the US is considered an experiment. We are a new and capitalistic Republic built on democratic principles.

<>
I agree abbi normal - definitely take it to an International Court - but Bush removed the USA from the jurisdiction of the International Court, after Clinton had agreed to be bound by it!

So a democracy is - literally - "people-rule", whereas a republic is "bourgeoisie-rule". Thank you, that clears it up for me, as the bourgeoisie are not the people, but the small crust at the top, the "scum" that rises. Thanks.
Maths Guru the young communist

That is, if I understood you correctly.

Certainly an engaging point of view Math...I like it!

Certainly an engaging point of view Math...I like it!

Yeah Abbi I am going to add fuel to the fire here. Bush repealed the ban on assasinations of heads of state after 9-11. OK ready for the onslaught on that one gang. Bin Laden would have been an eligible target even with the ban in place, as he was not a head of state. Clinton gets sainted on this page. He had ample opportunity to remove Bin Laden but chose not to. Pope assasination attempt, WTC bombing, USAF barracks bombing, USS Cole, US embasses in Africa. We let him get away with all of that. No reprocutions (aside from a few cruise missiles Clinton loved those) for years.

The process is pretty straightforward as far as distinction between criminal/combatant. A person fighting for a recognized state is a combatant. Anyone else is a criminal. There is nuance involoved. As I said earlier, according to the Law of Land Warfare uniform is important. In US uniform I am a combatant. The times I did missions in local dress I would not have been afforded protection as a pow (not that our enemies would offer it to anyone)if captured. If I were in enemy uniform and/or vehicle the same would apply. The trick now is what are we going to recognize? If you asked ES then Bush pulled a coup the US is evil and therefore not a legitimate nation anymore. I would offer up the job of recognizing nations as legitimate government or illigitimate despotism to the UN, we could have a clear list of who the "bad guys" were then.

You asked about ES and Della. ES is off the deep end, no doubt about that. Della just happens to disagree with 99.9% of what Bush thinks, but is not rabid about it.

Ok I know the thread is entitled “What’s wrong with Americans” but it has turned into what’s wrong with George Walker Bush or what’s wrong with Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am going to divert for a minute here folks. I am assuming that the thread started because a bunch of Brits really could not get a grasp on what the Yanks were thinking. Well, I think I have found an answer. “I am a Stranger Here Myself” is a book written by a man who has born and raised in the states, got a job with a Brit newspaper lived there for twenty years and returned to the states. It is a humorous read about the anecdotal differences between two nations separated by a common language.

Oh and Maths. The idea of a republic is still democracy, it is indirect democracy where the decisions are made by people chosen by the people. Personally I hold no faith in democracy anyway since the masses are asses. I think Plato had it right with his enlightened monarchy. Of course finding just, moral intelligent perfect rulers is an impossibility. That is why communisim fails. Way too much opportunity for corruption. In a perfect world we would ll work together. In the real world why would I work harder so that the government can get more? Hence we fall back on indirect democracy as the most equitable system for mere mortals in the real world

Course Flip you've "stood the wall" in your day. Those E Block girls are something are they not brother?

About the florida election.

What no one ever mentions in debates about this is the inherent accuracy of making a measurement. Everyone assumes that every vote gets counted, but the first thing they taught me in my FIRST college physics class was the error inherent in EVERY measurement. Why should elections be any different?

What a waste of time taking it to the supreme court, arguing, re-counting. What is the inherent margin of error in the vote counting system? What was it during the 2000 election? Obviously the results in Florida were well within this margin of error. The solution is to change the electoral law taking into account the possibility of the tie (run off election), maybe state by state.

Anyone here ever hear of the "calculus of voting"? The margin of error problem would seem to increase the feeling that the individual vote doesn't matter (since there is a calculable chance that it won't be counted). That's probably why politicians and pundits don't address that issue.

dave

Flip gone AWOL...?

Argh, Flipper has no one here explained topic drift to you.

Things can get waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off track, but hey its not a TV debate where time is advertising revenue lost there is no ring master host to keep us from digressing. Also we have no deadlines to come up with any answers or plans we just chew the fat and feel good when we think we've got one over on the "other side". We dont change much here. Unless we change ourselves, but that would require people to think about what others have posted.

You must already know how often that happens.

Flip, Clinton sure isnt going to be sainted by me. OK his foreign policy was not as hawkish as GW Bush but that doesnt mean I think hes some kind of peace loving hippy (maybe if he had inhaled that might have changed things).

Of course theres lots that needs to be done in Iraq its been bombed by the British and US since the start of Desert Storm till now. Embargos during that time and being ruled by a US backed Despotic killer( the Ace Of spades in your little pack of cards) who took them into a long and bloody war with their neighbour where the US backed both sides pretty much ensured that you went into a country that needed the wests help.

What does the West have against the people in the middle east?

Is it because they're Arabs. No its no racism, the west loves the Saudis. Bin Laden is Saudi but the coalition invade Afghanistan and Iraq instead.(Imagine that on Cops. Two patrol cars pull up at the trailer park and arrest people who live in the neighbours trailers because they like th people in the middle trailer so much ignoring the fact that the perp comes from and was funded by people in another trailer altogether.)

Is it because they use brutal sharia law that is demeaning to women and ignores many human rights?

Well thats what we are told, but in Saudi Arabia people are tortured to extract confessions. Women have lower legal standing than men and rapes are hushed up. This is the case not only for Saudi nationals but foreign workers too. (Give 'em their dues, atleast they consitently brutal and iniquitous.)

Is it because they are bellicose countries with nuclear stock piles?

No thats Israel and Pakistan two countries that the US gives money to.

Is it because they are undemocratic regimes?

No that would include Saudi Arabia, again.

The simple answer is oil. Invading Afghanistan secured means of supply routes but Iraq was always the holy grail in this crusade. The Saudis have always played ball because the Saudi Rulers always knew they would need US help if there were a revolution against the royal family. Libya didnt want to play ball and so suffered blockades and air strikes for years.

The US stated foreign policy is a web of lies held up by very few facts.

You are doing the dangerous spade work so that the rich in the US can get even richer. You are risking your life to the effect that the world becomes a more dangerous place for the average american. Millions of tax dollars were diverted away from education to the effect that we could have cheaper heroin and eventually cheaper oil (but its heroin production thats up at the moment).

God Bless America, because with Bush at the helm you need someboy on your side.

Flip, Clinton sure isnt going to be sainted by me. OK his foreign policy was not as hawkish as GW Bush but that doesnt mean I think hes some kind of peace loving hippy (maybe if he had inhaled that might have changed things).

Of course theres lots that needs to be done in Iraq its been bombed by the British and US since the start of Desert Storm till now. Embargos during that time and being ruled by a US backed Despotic killer( the Ace Of spades in your little pack of cards) who took them into a long and bloody war with their neighbour where the US backed both sides pretty much ensured that you went into a country that needed the wests help.

What does the West have against the people in the middle east?

Is it because they're Arabs. No its no racism, the west loves the Saudis. Bin Laden is Saudi but the coalition invade Afghanistan and Iraq instead.(Imagine that on Cops. Two patrol cars pull up at the trailer park and arrest people who live in the neighbours trailers because they like th people in the middle trailer so much ignoring the fact that the perp comes from and was funded by people in another trailer altogether.)

Is it because they use brutal sharia law that is demeaning to women and ignores many human rights?

Well thats what we are told, but in Saudi Arabia people are tortured to extract confessions. Women have lower legal standing than men and rapes are hushed up. This is the case not only for Saudi nationals but foreign workers too. (Give 'em their dues, atleast they consitently brutal and iniquitous.)

Is it because they are bellicose countries with nuclear stock piles?

No thats Israel and Pakistan two countries that the US gives money to.

Is it because they are undemocratic regimes?

No that would include Saudi Arabia, again.

The simple answer is oil. Invading Afghanistan secured means of supply routes but Iraq was always the holy grail in this crusade. The Saudis have always played ball because the Saudi Rulers always knew they would need US help if there were a revolution against the royal family. Libya didnt want to play ball and so suffered blockades and air strikes for years.

The US stated foreign policy is a web of lies held up by very few facts.

You are doing the dangerous spade work so that the rich in the US can get even richer. You are risking your life to the effect that the world becomes a more dangerous place for the average american. Millions of tax dollars were diverted away from education to the effect that we could have cheaper heroin and eventually cheaper oil (but its heroin production thats up at the moment).

God Bless America, because with Bush at the helm you need someboy on your side.

Thanks for that Sargent Flipper-
I'll add that
Clinton did go after Osama.
It was the wag the dog event while the Republicans were worried about his sex life.

It was titles wag the dog and much disputed as BS but it was not.
********
On another angle
This is an article about the fuzzy line of occupation vs (benevelent) restructuring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/10/arts/10OCCU.html

Interesting the NYT article with important questions is tucked away in the arts section It should be a front page topic

The Oil and voting issues always come back into any US discussion because they are important issues. They have a lot to do with the percieved power of the voters and other countries watching.
They are real concerns.

It is very odd to say the least that the Saudis - where reportedly the financing for Terrorism often comes from ( besides knock-off designer fashions sold to Americans)have not been held accountable.

>>In the real world why would I work harder so that the government can get more?<<
That is a very libertarian statement, Sarge - may I take it that you are a Rand follower?