posted
The ambassador of Narn on finding his world smashed into dust and subjugated for dubious reasons says, "Though it take a thousand years, We...WILL...BE...FREE!
sheesh man... G,Kar is plastic...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: Tex- Oh you think I am RCA? I am definitely not. I'm not sure what you would base that assumption on. Did he used to post in off topics a lot? Bob can look that type of stuff up can't he? Look I mistakenly defended a guy who made me money a few times, bad choice on my part I guess and I learned the error of my ways. But I am a loyal person that way. He was the main poster on my first real runner. Now I am much more apt to look to the likes of Juice who I feel is a very straight shooter. I think if you compare RCA's posts to mine you will see a huge difference. He was all chart talk and I'm still not convinced of there effectiveness. Maybe you should ask for Juice's thoughts on this issue.
NO, I don't think you are RCA--the only time I had a question was during "the heat of battle" that afternoon, on that one thread... iss all good
posted
It may be that I missed his point Glassman, after all, as you could say last night, we all need to be able to admit we can be wrong. Tell me if I heard him right: What I think I hear him saying is destroy a nation's infrastructure and leave them to fix it up and pay for it themselves after. My point is if we have destroyed and damaged colonial people groups, it is our obligation as nations that claim social maturity to provide the means and resources for the victims of colonial rule to find themselves. Another word for what I advocate is: reparations for the damage we wrought during the colonial and Cold War periods.
Very cool G'kar pic. My point is that bombing people into the stone age only creates underlying resentment that will invariably manifest itself in identity repression and violence which we see in the present war on terror. I am suggesting we fight this war on another front: socio-economic, as Hamas and Hezbollah did to win adherents. We have the financial and logistical means to do so at a far less expensive cost to our nation in lives and dollars than a protracted war. Let's empower victims of cololialism and Cold War to re-establish their own indigenous identity as we fight this war, so the number of "fronts" will gradually shrink. In this all the G-8 and the other colonial powers must get involved. I have to leave but thanks all for the dialog. I hope we chat, argue, agree and disagree more on this interesting topic later.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
I posted that very early in the morning...perhaps I was not clear. I was not saying bring em down to the stone age and leave em to rebuild. Quite the contrary.
What I am saying is that these conflicts will not subside until the authors decide to change their thinking. No outside party can force that short of taking away all freedoms of the country, all weapons of a country, and all contact with the outside world.
Strike quickly before a defense could be mounted and secure the entire country. Enforce a non-voluntary governmental restructuring from the ground up. Wash them with images of why such actions are wrong headed, suppress any contrary points of view. In ten years or so once they begin to see the benefits of the enforced education and infrastructure building with 1st world tech they just might start to believe that what you say is right just might be true.
Everything else in the post above is descriptive and unnecessary.
A third party can temporarily halt a conflict. A third party cannot change other's points of view so that the conflict doesn't reoccur.
Sas
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think we are suggesting similar things, I was just giving too hurried a read so it's my bad. I think where we differ is that I have a more grass-roots approach that begins possibly even before armed conflict to lay a groundwork of relationships.
Gordon is right, though that's not what I was suggesting. We must finance the development of infra-structure that enable indigenous peoples to choose their own system of governance and cultural expression, with one caveat: all sovereign nations must abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and leaders who violate that declaration must be forceably removed BY THE WORLD COMMUNITY. That threshold would have to be established yet but a line must be drawn. Cultural development involves meeting basic needs: food, clothing, water, shelter, community, access to medical care and religion. Then they will be allowing self-determination in the establishment of identity. True, this is on a micro level, a human level, but affecting change takes place on that level. Now this may seem to go far afield (something we idealists are known for anyway).
Consider the startling suicide statistics surrounding recently retired men. Did you know that a big part of the despondancy comes from lack of identity in retirement. We define/label people so much by what they do it becomes their adopted identity. They struggle for self-identitification once they retire and for some it is too much.
It is necessary at this point to explain the difference between the concept of self-esteem and self-identity. Self-esteem asks, "How you feel about yourself?"; self-identity asks, "Who are you?" Do you see the more basis/essential nature of the second question? They are related, but the second question is about who the person is.
Now people answer that in a variety of ways: I am a child of God, I am mom or dad, son or daughter, I am Christian or Muslim or Jew or atheist, etc. See the relationality expressed in these statements. But because of the paradigm of the man or woman as provider (though for the generation that sees this suicide phenomenon at such a seemingly strange time the data is largely men), many people define themselves by what they do: I am an accountant, a preacher, a counselor, a business-person, a chef, a teacher, an investor, an attorney, etc. Do you see the discontinuity implied in that "I'm a do-er" model? Once you stop doing, you stop being.
Despite the potential pitfalls though, we still insist on finding meaning and/or purpose in life. And the personal dilema is quite profound unless identity can be found once again, this time focused on fulfillment of being. That is the nature of the change I advocate applied in the individuals to affect the macro level.
Now of course this will take alot of time, generations in fact, but it will lead to a tapering down of hostilities and loss of life. The central question then becomes: which has greater inherent value, human life or power?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have wandered away from my initial question: why do Democratic policies, intentional or not, cave to genocide? Why has the party fallen so far from a Human Rights based foreign policy? We know the founder of that policy, President Jimmy Carter, involved the US in the morally precipitous arms dealing relationship with Iraq after the hostage crisis in Iran began. We know he pushed Iraq to topple the Iranian regime in its infancy. But oh the cost.
We see in these articles that both parties supported "the Butcher of Baghdad." Though one thing I would say: the Republicans were up front about their mistake and Republicans put political fortunes on the line to address the nightmare their mistake caused for Iraq.
On the other hand, why did President Carter, a person I greatly respected for his stand on human rights, so willingly support Saddy? For mere political gain, to win an election. President Carter supported a war in order to win re-election. I was absolutely devastated to hear that and coming in the aftermath of Rwanda, it got me thinking about the foreign policy of the Democrats. As I look back at the lives lost over the last three decades, directly and indirectly, because of US foreign policy, I want my country, the nation I love, and pray for each day, to cleanse its collective conscience.
When I consider that roughly 6.5 million people have been killed in genocidal and/or ethnic cleansing circumstances when a Democratic president was in 12 years holding the high office and another 3.5 million died in the 18 years Republicans have held the presidency, I weep that our great might couldn't have done something for some of those 10,000,000 people (these figures taken from Human Rights Watch website but you have to search because it's spread out).
That's what led me to write this thread. Not so much to put the blame on one side or the other since both have been complicit. But one side, to which I used to adhere, claimed to put human rights high on the priority list in terms of foreign policy. Both should have but one claimed it as their birthright. They should be held under scrutiny too.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I consider that roughly 6.5 million people have been killed in genocidal and/or ethnic cleansing circumstances when a Democratic president was in 12 years holding the high office and another 3.5 million died in the 18 years Republicans have held the presidency, I weep that our great might couldn't have done something for some of those 10,000,000 people (these figures taken from Human Rights Watch website but you have to search because it's spread out).
you are just another Republican for God....
your stats are misleading... neither party is "good" in your sense of the word... Rumsfeld and Cheney and Oliver North were all playing with both sides of the fence in Iran and Iraq.... and i am a Republican, but i am also a realist...
people are mean...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you are just another Republican for God...."
Not in the least other than the "for God" part. It is interesting that you would suggest I have a political affiliation but I have to admit I am surprised at your choice. Usually my liberal friends call me fascist and my conservative friends call me communist. So thanks for moving me to the center...er ah...relatively.
"your stats are misleading... neither party is "good" in your sense of the word..."
Never suggested either party is good. Thats why I am an Independent Conscientious voter. The stats are not misleading in the least. They represent the people who were killed by their own governments in actions that could have been classified genocide or ethnic cleansing had the climate of the times been willing to use that language. Both parties are guilty, my point is the Democrats policies have carried a hidden-ness to them. Like President Carter's initiation of that Saddy relationship, which Republicans were all too ready to exploit. Check my documentation; highly critical of Republican involvement with Saddy. I am not hiding anyone's villainy. I am merely shining new light on the event that left me disillusioned with my former party.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and Oliver North were all playing with both sides of the fence in Iran and Iraq.... and i am a Republican, but i am also a realist...
people are mean..."
Absolutely agreed! Those guys and others in the Republican camp did nothing to reign Saddy in. I thought the documentation I offered demonstrated this is not a one sided affair. It's just that one side wants to make us think they are clean.
Left to our own devices, human beings are corrupted by evil. Your cynicism about how world events turn out is consistent with the Christian worldview, but we must, as Dylan Thomas wrote, "rage against the dying of the light!"
I apologize if I am not articulating my contention well. Sixteen hour days at staf meeting, in hospitalcalls and in-home visits, in counselling sessions and VBS wear on my clarity at times. The reason I point to Democrats in this thread is only because they claim no responsibility for Saddy. He's a monster we are all responsible for and the victims were the Iraqi, Iranian, Kuwaiti and Saudi people primarily, though not exclusively.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This seems like the wrong crowd to have such sympathy for impoverished peoples. Oh how I so wanted to be a Socialist in youth, and look at me now. A scummy Capitalist pig, exploiting so many to make a quick buck on the stock market.
posted
I don't. I do support the removal of a person who committed genocide. As I feel the world community must do in Sudan. Personally, I would have prefered the Western powers and Russia that empowered Hussein buy him off into exile. Support for the war in Iraq became necessary once troops were on the ground. But all the powers that armed him should have taken up the burden: England, France, Germany, Russia and the US. It was a Cold War relic that we just abandoned the people to their fate.
The sanctions would never have been lifted as long as Saddy was in power. Children and women starved to death while people profitted from oil-for-food. Something had to be done for that reason alone. I think WMDs can be contained. I think terror links have to be out-foxed. Neither of those arguments was compelling to me. What happened in 1988 was and the continuing killing was to me made it necessary to remove him.
I would say, knowing the lesson of Somalia, that killing Americans means we will run, led quickly to the Rwandan and Sudanese genocides while intensifying the crisis in Srbenica. At some point a model for the removal of a brutal leader had to be presented or we invite more genocide. The US facilitated Papa Doc's regime departure in Haiti financially. I would have prefered that mechanism. But...President Bush chose another option. The troops have performed admirably with a few nototious exceptions, but I am troubled by GITMO.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really know Jordan. But I can post what the methodist Church says about it.
"We also acknowledge that many Christians believe that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, the force of arms may regretfully be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny and genocide. We honor the witness of pacifists who will not allow us to become complacent about war and violence. We also respect those who support the use of force, but only in extreme situations and only when the need is clear beyond reasonable doubt, and through appropriate international organizations. We urge the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs as a means of elimination of war, violence, and coercion in these affairs."
posted
I think Jesus opposes war as the greatest of sins, but the United Methodist principles posted in my bro's post pointed to the human brokenness that puts us in the present quandry. It's really an age old question. It cost Dietriche Bonhoeffer his life for opposing Hitler in WW2. Jesus would always oppose war. But humanity is inadequate in relationality to eliminate war, so we struggle with situations like genocide. To be inactive allows evil to flourish. It's a quixotic dilema
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Me too! Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group, is wrong."
Since no American president commits(ed) genocide while the Iranian backed Sunni in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon (though hopefully not for much longer) do engage in deliberate, systematic destruction of persons in a way that violates both the UN Declaraion of Human Rights and the Convention against Genocide, You and I are in full agreement in this statement.
But let's put the Convention's understanding on the table to see what genocide has been/is being committed:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
Article 1 The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article 3 The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
Article 5 The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
Article 6 Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
Article 7 Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Article 8 Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
Article 9 Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Article 10 The present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall bear the date of 9 December 1948.
Article 11 The present Convention shall be open until 31 December 1949 for signature on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State to which an invitation to sign has been addressed by the General Assembly. The present Convention shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
After 1 January 1950, the present Convention may be acceded to on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State which has received an invitation as aforesaid.
Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 12 Any Contracting Party may at any time, by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, extend the application of the present Convention to all or any of the territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations that Contracting Party is responsible.
Article 13 On the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited, the Secretary-General shall draw up a proces-verbal and transmit a copy of it to each Member of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in Article 11. The present Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
Any ratification or accession effected subsequent to the latter date shall become effective on the ninetieth day following the deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession.
Article 14 The present Convention shall remain in effect for a period of ten years as from the date of its coming into force. It shall thereafter remain in force for successive periods of five years for such Contracting Parties as have not denounced it at least six months before the expiration of the current period.
Denunciation shall be effected by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 15 If, as a result of denunciations, the number of Parties to the present Convention should become less than sixteen, the Convention shall cease to be in force as from the date on which the last of these denunciations shall become effective.
Article 16 A request for the revision of the present Convention may be made at any time by any Contracting Party by means of a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General. The General Assembly shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such request.
Article 17 The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify all Members of the United Nations and the non-member States contemplated in Article 11 of the following:
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions received in accordance with Article 11; (b) Notifications received in accordance with Article 12; (c) The date upon which the present Convention comes into force in accordance with Article 13; (d) Denunciations received in accordance with Article 14; (e) The abrogation of the Convention in accordance with Article 15; (f) Notifications received in accordance with Article 16. Article 18 The original of the present Convention shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations. A certified copy of the Convention shall be transmitted to all Members of the United Nations and to the non-member States contemplated in Article 11.
Article 19 The present Convention shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the date of its coming into force.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now having put a level playing field out there, let's consider article 2 thru 7 in which the reason Saddam had to be removed becomes glaringly obvious.
On the other hand, in order to suggest an American president has engaged in such activity, one must have as threshold the following phraseology from Article 2:
"genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"
The focal point here would be "with intent." There is nothing on record, official or unofficial, that suggests George Bush entered into this war with the intent of genocide.
The charge of genocide cannot be demonstrated and President Bush acted within the UN Converntion on Genocide to the letter. Read Articles 3-7 to see what signatories are to do when confronted with acts of genocide.
On the other hand, under the same article 2, laying out that threshold of intent, it can be argued that Warren Christopher's "off the record" remark at the UN when confronted about Rwanda in 1994 could constitute an act of genocide: "Let them (sic Rwandans) die as long as Americans don't have to." True that is muddy legal water, but there we had an American administration official that said it was alright for an ethnic group to be cleansed as long as American troops did not have to die. At the very least it was a failure of our responsibility as signatores of the Convention on Genocide.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where George Bush has violated international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is at GITMO and the "detention centers" in other countries.
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which was created in 1994 and finalized in 1997. This convention document's the illegality of the current administration's treatment of prisoners of war. First, the definition the administration is using about these terrorists is only gray because the UN has not caught up with the situation on the ground (what's new about that?). Second, this convention limits the use of ill treatment in order to obtain information.
The idea is to skirt both international law and our legal system as we fight the war. You can find this Convention at this site:
posted
i dont think i know anyone in my old platoon that went to iraq with me would believe in this war anymore. take a good look at the timeline. its pathetic...and no backup or withdrawl plan? what kind of military planning was that? there wasnt...general shinseki tried to plan it out, but rumsfeld wanted to have his way at any cost so shinseki "retired"
how much longer are we going to be there?
and those are facts my friend!
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The move to leave right now allows genocide to thrive. As my two cousins re-upped in the last year when they could have retired, which meant a return to Iraq and Afghanistan for both, there are many, many who recognize the need to do the right thing and right colonial and Cold War abuses. That too is "the facts" Cash Cow.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: i dont think i know anyone in my old platoon that went to iraq with me would believe in this war anymore. take a good look at the timeline. its pathetic...and no backup or withdrawl plan? what kind of military planning was that? there wasnt...general shinseki tried to plan it out, but rumsfeld wanted to have his way at any cost so shinseki "retired"
how much longer are we going to be there?
and those are facts my friend!
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as facts, I respect your service Cash. I also disagree with you and that is an ideal you have fought for: our right to express ourselves and disagree with each other. It's a commendable endeavor. But consider this. Within this thread and my recent comments the issue is not "how the war is going." None of us agree with the conduct of the war, but that does not mean we must surrender to the genocide that is continuing as Iran backs the Sunni insurgency. To think, if my idea had been tried, none of this would have needed to happen.
Surely you recognize that the world community must end genocide, do you not? That is the only reason for intervention that I endorsed. I never agreed with the war until our troops, including two of my cousins, were in the conflict. Historically my family has given alot to protect this nation, great uncles buried in Africa, Europe and the Pacific depths, ancestors on both sides of the Civil War, ancestors in the Revolutionary War and one that rode with the Rough Riders.
Never in a war like this. Do I think it's a mistake to not have an exit strategy? Yes! Absolutely. Do I think it's a mistake to keep that exit strategy from the public? Absolutely not!
See I suspect you are making the mistake others on this board have made: assuming that I support this war on the basis of what the administration's agenda is. None of us really know what that agenda is or how pervasively it shapes our present actions. I argue against war as a means to an end. I argue for winning a permanent peace.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
The whole reason for American troops not staying is contained in the issue on "How the War Is Going".
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
His reasoning is to do and say whatever he can to make dubya not look like what he really is, a mental midget and a moral zero.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was brought into this thread by a war vet and I was replying to that. However, the question of how the war is going is not a reason for American troops to not stay, but that is a discussion that will have to wait. The question here that I was confronted with is Bush's role in genocide and no one has responded to the answer I gave which is fine.
Instead they raised very good questions about the insurgency's efficacy in making us do a Somalia. That event encouraged the genocide in Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing in Sudan intensified. They knew Americans would not prevent the genocide after the events of October 1993. By April 1994 the killings began in Rwanda, and the intensity of killings in Sudan reached new levels by 1995. In both cases leaders have intimated they knew they could do so with relative impunity simply by killing a few caucasian troops. Belgians were seized and killed in Rwanda, Belgians left despite the fact that their racial profiling in part inspired the climate that led to killing.
So are you a fan of what happened to our troops in Somalia? Are you a fan of the genocide and mutilation that went on in Rwanda and Sudan? If so, pull the coalition forces out of Iraq now and you can see it again. You seem to have the philosophy of a fire-fighter: "Drive real fast, spray water all over and leave a mess." That works in a fire, very effectively. But try it in heart surgery, "Oh, things look bad right now, best just go home and hope it gets better."
In this case, our presence prevents something far worse.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
