Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 239

Thread: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

  1. #201
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    So in your world using human shields makes one immune from attack? Sorry but international law would contradict your thesis. By your logic the air campaign against the Germans during WW2 was unacceptable because more civilians were killed than soldiers.
    In undeclared, aggressive, offensive, occupational war I think you're under a bit more constraint. There's a "shoot the hostage" thing that can work out, maybe it it's one for one. But the fact is it's not. At best we're getting one or two terrorists for a handful of civilians. That's just not acceptable. Go in with police units. Maybe if we were in a declared, defensive war we'd have more justification. But we're talking about violating the sovereignty of another country to attack people we've labeled this or that killing a lot of their civilians in the process. And these people pose little to no threat against the United States itself. So, nice little hyperbole again with the German army, but false analogy.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #202
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    In undeclared, aggressive, offensive, occupational war I think you're under a bit more constraint. There's a "shoot the hostage" thing that can work out, maybe it it's one for one. But the fact is it's not. At best we're getting one or two terrorists for a handful of civilians. That's just not acceptable. Go in with police units. Maybe if we were in a declared, defensive war we'd have more justification. But we're talking about violating the sovereignty of another country to attack people we've labeled this or that killing a lot of their civilians in the process. And these people pose little to no threat against the United States itself. So, nice little hyperbole again with the German army, but false analogy.
    What's an "occupational" war? If it's an unoccupational war do we give back every inch of territory gained the previous day at midnight?

    Since Aghanland attacked the United States, and since the US Congress authorized military force in retaliation, our effort in Afghanland is neither "undeclared" nor is it "agressive" or "offensive", except in the sense that the United States defending itself form enemy attacks offends liberals and socialists.

    So what war are you referring to, since it's clear you're not discussing Afghanistan?

  3. #203
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    What's an "occupational" war? If it's an unoccupational war do we give back every inch of territory gained the previous day at midnight?

    Since Aghanland attacked the United States, and since the US Congress authorized military force in retaliation, our effort in Afghanland is neither "undeclared" nor is it "agressive" or "offensive", except in the sense that the United States defending itself form enemy attacks offends liberals and socialists.

    So what war are you referring to, since it's clear you're not discussing Afghanistan?
    Part Iraq as well. That one is occupational war. We do have undeclared war as there was never an official Declaration of War issued by Congress. They've allowed the President to act at his discretion with regards to the troop. But we haven't had an officially declared war since WW II.

    As I've said numerous times, I wasn't against going to Afghanistan. I thought it legitimate target. But if we ain't made any progress in 8 years, I don't see the point. I will not support forever war. Forever war does not lead to good places.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #204
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    wow. Really? Lies and distortion are your only defense here?
    THIS thread concerns the question of the legality of using specific weapons systems in combat as opposed to other systems. You've already conceded that the weapons platform itself is morally neutral.

    Since you are continuing to force the discussion away from this topic, you are indeed hijacking the thread.

    What "distortions" and what "lies" are in the above statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I commented on the OP from the start.
    Then you took a left turn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You started in with deflections about talking about other weapons when other weapons were not on topic.
    Wrong.

    The issue was the legality of a specific weapons platform, and you've already conceded that it makes no difference which platform is used, hence the illegality of the RPV is a nonsensical claim by the UN goons.

    Do you agree or disagree that the use of a specific weapons platform, vis a vis RPV v F-18 is irrelevant and since the latter is legal so is the other?

    That's the topic. You've already conceded this, are you constant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, atrocity is atrocity.
    No. The word "atrocity" is a value-judgement.

    Burning Tokyo and Kyoto and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were appropriate acts given the nature of the enemy we'd engaged. US troops were dying on the battlefield every damn day the Japanese refused to surrender. They asked for war, they got war. They didn't like it? Too bad, they got it anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Atrocity is an absolute scale, it's not relative to something.
    Nonsense.

    Atrocity: An atrocious act.

    Atrocious: Extremely evil.

    Yeah, that looks pretty absolute to me. Of course, "extremely" and "evil" are both judgement terms, but what the hell, they must be absolute judgement terms.

    Now, I for one find abortion to be atrocious, I'm betting that you're totally supportive of incubators murdering their babies. But since I say it's an atrocity, and you say that atrocity is an absolute, you must be wrong about abortion.

    Now, let's get back to your hijacking of the thread....

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You may engage in atrocity, you may even have an argument for doing so; but it doesn't take away from it. Nuking Japan was an atrocity as well. It was a horror brought to life that no one had even realized before. It's not to say there wasn't reason behind it. Or that we were wrong for doing so. But it's still a horrible event and a black mark upon humanity.
    If we weren't wrong in nuking Japan, then it was the right thing to do. By definition, the right thing to do is not evil, and since atrocity is an extremely evil act, by definition nuking Japan was not an atrocity.

    You probably should refrain from engaging in word games with me. I own a dictionary and it's loaded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It most certainly did, we killed a lot of civilians. We destroyed a lot of life, mass destruction on that scale is atrocity.
    Oh. Sheer volume is now the standard for defining atrocity. Well, abortion murders three million babies a year. You still want to claim abortion isn't an atrocity, or are you going to withdraw your claim that sheer numbers measure "atrocity"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That too. And it can be perhaps argued that it was more brutal as instead of bombing indistinguishable people from up high, it was committed face to face.
    No. The Death March was an atrocity because, by OUR standards, POW's fought honorably and once surrended are owed a certain bare minimum of care.

    By the Japanese standards, men who didn't fight to the death in battle were cowards and were less than human. The battles up the Paciific were remarkable by the extremely low number of POW's captured by Allied forces. They got killed in battle or suicided.

    Atrocity - it's subjective, not absolute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I didn't vote for Obama.
    Why not? Don't you like him? Don't you approve of the fact that he's refused to succor the US troops in Afghanistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    So less you want to extend the same courtesy, piss off. You'll get treated as you treat others.
    I can take it fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No it's not. You want me to be ok with the killing of 10,000's of people, civilans and innocents,
    Again, that "innoncent" business. Don't you people learn anything from what I'm teaching you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Didn't those people initially die under Bush?
    Some did, and I ragged Bush for his incompetence. But that's what I expect from liberals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    While I had initially supported Afghanistan as legitimate target
    Still is.

    And unless the job is done properly the only thing certain is that more terrorists will infest the place and someone will have to go back there sometime to do the job the liberals don't seem to be able to finish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The places you propose bombing you merely define as "warzone" as to remove responsibility and guilt. But they are civilian areas. Apartment complexes, communities, etc. It's no war zone till you drop the bomb.
    It is if our enemies are sheltering there.

    Since no one is actively and deliberately targetting areas known to be lacking terrorists, what's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Armies exist to defend sovereignty and freedom.
    You mean like attacking the nation that murdered 3,000 citizens in a single morngin?

    That's what our forces are doing in Afghanistan. All they need now is direction and a specific goal since the previous liberal allowed things to go to pot over there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Not engage in offensive, occupational wars in lands not our own for causes not our own.
    Well, that certainly doesn't describe the US actions in Afghanland in anyway, so let us know when the US is doing that, okay?

  5. #205
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Part Iraq as well. That one is occupational war.
    No.

    The war as the invasion.

    Then there was the occupation, which wasn't a war.

    Welcome to people who use words correctly.



    All "wars" include occupying the land of the enemy, unless we're trading nukes. In that event, the land can't be occupied.

  6. #206
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    And BTW something tells me that keep the apidastra flying has less to do with a socialist delusion and has a much closer relation to orwell's own forays into purposefully seeking low waged jobs and even encarceration to be amongst those and live the life of those whom he saw oppressed.
    "Purposely"?

    Your ignorance is astounding. No, Homage to Catalonia, Burmese Days, Down and Out in Paris and London, and Keep the Aspidistra Flying were all semi-autobiographical and he lived those experiences through necessity, and not as some role-playing journalist as you can find today.

    And what you're saying is you're now arguing works and the meaning thereof which you've not read with a person who's read them often.

    Good for you, it's fun watching you argue from complete ignorance.

    Go read the damn books, boy.

  7. #207
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,289

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Wait...using unmanned planes to kill a bunch of civilians is against international law! Absurd.
    Actually terrorists are civilians in the purest sense since they are not part of a state military. Gee I guess we have to quite the war on terrorism now.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #208
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    THIS thread concerns the question of the legality of using specific weapons systems in combat as opposed to other systems. You've already conceded that the weapons platform itself is morally neutral.

    Since you are continuing to force the discussion away from this topic, you are indeed hijacking the thread.

    What "distortions" and what "lies" are in the above statement?
    No, this thread was about Pakistan raising concerns of our use of drone planes on their sovereign territory and killing their civilians while attempting to get terrorists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Then you took a left turn.
    That would have been you

    Wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The issue was the legality of a specific weapons platform, and you've already conceded that it makes no difference which platform is used, hence the illegality of the RPV is a nonsensical claim by the UN goons.

    Do you agree or disagree that the use of a specific weapons platform, vis a vis RPV v F-18 is irrelevant and since the latter is legal so is the other?

    That's the topic. You've already conceded this, are you constant?
    Weapon platform isn't part of the OP. That was YOU deflecting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No. The word "atrocity" is a value-judgement.

    Burning Tokyo and Kyoto and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were appropriate acts given the nature of the enemy we'd engaged. US troops were dying on the battlefield every damn day the Japanese refused to surrender. They asked for war, they got war. They didn't like it? Too bad, they got it anyway.
    a⋅tro⋅cious
     –adjective
    1. extremely or shockingly wicked, cruel, or brutal: an atrocious crime.
    2. shockingly bad or tasteless; dreadful; abominable: an atrocious painting; atrocious manners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Nonsense.

    Atrocity: An atrocious act.

    Atrocious: Extremely evil.
    Evil isn't in the actual definition, that's you adding things to make it "floppy" enough to deflect away from the actual act.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Yeah, that looks pretty absolute to me. Of course, "extremely" and "evil" are both judgement terms, but what the hell, they must be absolute judgement terms.
    That you added. Yes. If we allow you to redefine terms to match your argument. But circular arguments are a show of poor debate and rather pointless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Now, I for one find abortion to be atrocious, I'm betting that you're totally supportive of incubators murdering their babies. But since I say it's an atrocity, and you say that atrocity is an absolute, you must be wrong about abortion.
    And that's where your assuming gets you into trouble. Abortion is the destruction of human life. Same as bombing civilians and innocent people who do no wrong and offer no threat. I'm pro-life. But don't let that get in the way of your assumptions and leaps in logic. Wouldn't want to destroy your only debate style.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Now, let's get back to your hijacking of the thread....
    That would be you

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    If we weren't wrong in nuking Japan, then it was the right thing to do. By definition, the right thing to do is not evil, and since atrocity is an extremely evil act, by definition nuking Japan was not an atrocity.

    You probably should refrain from engaging in word games with me. I own a dictionary and it's loaded.
    Your dictionary seems to be only 5 pages long. As I said, there is defense in nuking Japan and I wasn't holding America at fault. It was atrocity, killing that many innocent people at once is nothing but. It's just who has the spine and resolve to admit it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Oh. Sheer volume is now the standard for defining atrocity. Well, abortion murders three million babies a year. You still want to claim abortion isn't an atrocity, or are you going to withdraw your claim that sheer numbers measure "atrocity"?
    Sheer volume isn't the only quantitative measure, but at some level it is as it is. If you do kill enough, you will reach atrocity level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No. The Death March was an atrocity because, by OUR standards, POW's fought honorably and once surrended are owed a certain bare minimum of care.
    Of course, that's also going to depend on your definition of POW. Define things in relative terms and you can excuse just about anything. It's why I prefer an absolute scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    By the Japanese standards, men who didn't fight to the death in battle were cowards and were less than human. The battles up the Paciific were remarkable by the extremely low number of POW's captured by Allied forces. They got killed in battle or suicided.

    Atrocity - it's subjective, not absolute.
    Atrocity is subjective only according to your standard, to make it convenient for your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Why not? Don't you like him? Don't you approve of the fact that he's refused to succor the US troops in Afghanistan?
    I never supported him. Again, assumption on your part. Only showing yourself the fool. I think there may be an opening for a czar position in Obama's administration for that. They seem good at it, maybe you should apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I can take it fine.
    hardly

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Again, that "innoncent" business. Don't you people learn anything from what I'm teaching you?
    If you're not going to read what I write, why should I read what you write? Besides, that's just a convenient definition on your part to excuse blame. I don't buy into those types of circular arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Some did, and I ragged Bush for his incompetence. But that's what I expect from liberals.
    Some 3,000 civilians (wait...are they "innocent"?), and another 3K troops on his watch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Still is.
    Nope, if in 8 years we can make no progress, there's no point in sending troops to die. 8 years ago it was legitimate target, now it's quagmire and ill run war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    And unless the job is done properly the only thing certain is that more terrorists will infest the place and someone will have to go back there sometime to do the job the liberals don't seem to be able to finish.
    There will always be terrorists. You're not going to run that number down to zero no matter what you do. Terrorist attack on US State (the 50 states) is a low probability attack and has very little chance of affecting any one random person. There are well more dangerous effects in everyday life that I'll worry about long before terrorism gets to the top of that list.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    It is if our enemies are sheltering there.
    The end does not always justify the means, the means are important as well. Killing 20 or so innocent people to get to 2 or 3 terrorists isn't a just act.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Since no one is actively and deliberately targetting areas known to be lacking terrorists, what's your point?
    One terrorist in a crowd does not justify bombing the crowd. Send in police.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You mean like attacking the nation that murdered 3,000 citizens in a single morngin?
    Attacking a nation which protected the group responsible is more accurate. And 8 years ago, I would have agreed. I'm not interested in forever war, no matter the "cause" it will not end well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    That's what our forces are doing in Afghanistan. All they need now is direction and a specific goal since the previous liberal allowed things to go to pot over there.
    Here's a goal. Get out. It wasn't just the "liberals" at fault for the ****ty state of things. The whole lot, conservative and liberal, have their hands in that one. The entirety of the wars were ill run and ill conceived from the start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Well, that certainly doesn't describe the US actions in Afghanland in anyway, so let us know when the US is doing that, okay?
    It's certainly the case in Iraq, and as Afghanistan has subsisted for 8 years with no resolution, progress, or hope of solution it too is quickly falling into that category.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #209
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Actually terrorists are civilians in the purest sense since they are not part of a state military. Gee I guess we have to quite the war on terrorism now.
    By some definition, terrorists can be considered "civilians" (though I thought we liked the "enemy combatant" label). But not all civilians are terrorists. So it's not carte blanche reasoning to off as many civilians as possible.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #210
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, this thread was about Pakistan raising concerns of our use of drone planes on their sovereign territory and killing their civilians while attempting to get terrorists.
    Right.

    The Pakis would never question the legality of using F-18's to perform the same task.


Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •