First strike and your out!
 

Can you believe what the "W" said to those West Point grads? That because the cold war is over, it's time to start flinging missles at whomever we don't like at the moment. No proof needed.

And then there was this: PBS News hour An amazing interview where one of the people seems to not even think he needs facts in order to state jingoist propganda! Ugh!

Of course, it's not even really mentioned in national media. The UK has some good stuff on it (Guardian story) and they can't believe he said it! What happened to rule of law? Why do we need to go starting wars with people?

I'm sorry I'm so disheveled by this. It's this kind of thing that makes me really hate my government (above and beyond my normal fear and loathing). Is there anything we as citizens can do? Anything at all?[

After the last election, I would say no there isn't anything we can do... As long as war is profitable we (the average citizens) are up shit creek...

It sucks to be so frustrated and have no means to get out your words. Fear and loathing are a good way to put it. Beyond concpiracy type things that cause the eyes to roll on others. People feel they are so learned that the good ole' government wouldnt betray them or do such things behind our backs.
The government obviously has to have it this way. They cant allow the masses to be in control, it just wouldnt work, they would devour themselves.
But if you dont think for one second there are thoese out there manipulating the global system, {carlyise group} biding their time, slowly turning the worm to their means.....maybe their time is now.
Am I paraniod? ...sure?
Am I right? ...I dunno.
A I wasting your time?...maybe.
It just sucks these days to not be able to say anything against bush and american policy. You can tell me all you want that bush is protecting my freedoms and allowing me the right to live here freely, including the right to criticize him.
Maybe thats a gift horse that needs to be punched in the mouth.
I get afraid of telling peple links to sites like this one.

www.hereinreality.com/conspiracy/

Now ill get rebuffed by others saying....oh he is a conpiracy guy...he should have just gotten to the point.

If they wanna burn you, they can. Its so easy. Depend on how dirty you are, and how hard anyone wants to dig. Even easier to take you out, but not as fun. I love my country, but fear my government. Our founding fathers were terrorists in the eyes of monarchies.

Ever notice how they have given up on looking for Osama?
Now its back on Iraq and Hussien. I cant believe the populous isnt looking for more answers to that alone. Is it that its just easier to put your head in the sand and go along with what the major media tells us? Flavor of the day news is what I call it.

America, love it or leave it. Or just dont ask questions.

John Doe had it right. "We see a sin on every streetcorner, in every city, and we just tolorate it." I see it in the media, and I am not buying.

Kudos to those who look to outside the us news for information.

okay.. a little calmer now..
 

The real question is this: Why should the USA have a unilateral first strike... against ANYONE!?!?

I'm not convinced that "bad guy" SH really has anything up his sleeve, and hell, even if he did, didn't the USA put him in power, arm him, train him, and have him fight the people we wanted for fight... for awhile at least.

If the CIA put him in there, do they have a right to take him out? It kinda reminds me of "collateral damage"... If we can predict that X number of civilians will be killed in operation Y, shouldn't we take the responceablity? I mean, should we help the people we killed, or their area, or their family? Or not have the operation in the first place?

At what point does our widely reported terror attack become just a start of a wider, more devistating crime to people that had nothing to do with it? Why should they fall too?

I guess I'm asking too much, as the US government hasn't even owned up to the fact that we stole the land we are living on, killed hundreds of thousands with "biological weapons or mass destruction" like smallpox blankets, not to mention collective punishment for all Natives. Oh, and treaties that don't mean a thing, at least on one side.

Okay, now I'm going to sleep.

Share the day,
Seer

I don't think there's anything wrong with some healthy paranoia, especially with the government. I believe in the system we have, but find it works best if looked at with suspicion. :)

Although there are several reasons why we won't join the International Criminal Court, I think this first strike deal could be one of them.

The ICC while nice on paper in fundamentally flawed becase it forgets one basic facts - no nation state is ever willingly going to give power to another one over it, the UN is toothless for a reason.

Jag, are you alright man? That post had only one misused word (you used "in" instead of "is" for the seventh word). ;)

there must be an inverse relation between sleep and typing ability - 4 hours in 2 days =)

Re: okay.. a little calmer now..
 

How do you define "unilateral first strike"?

Threat asessment is a judgement call. Are you saying a nation or person must actually be overtly attacked before defending themselves?

The standard for the use of deadly force in self-defense by individuals here is only that they must reasonably believe that it is necessary to protect themselves from death or serious injury.

There are also rules of procedure and engagement between nations. When the threat is from a covert or guerilla force, things are less clear. But certainly a nation harboring a threatening force is a belligerent too.

Um, yes. How can you be "defending" yourself if you are offensively attacking someone? That just make no sense at all.

Okay, so let me put it this way? I was taunted quite a lot in middle school (because I was a "nerd", a trait that in college has gotten much more positive remarks). Should I have been able to legally take my father's finely crafted baseball bat (or rifle?) and "defend" myself into his head? Because, you know, some of those kids taunting me sure looked like they needed a "regime change" from my "intelligence reports".

Well, I got beaten up quite a few times by those kids. (Damn you Eric Deamon!) Is that enough to justiy, say, killing them, a few by standers, and a few million dollars worth of infrastructure? When the US goes to war, they KNOW that there will be non-combatants killed, people who just happen to be there at the wrong time, but they were still killed by the US. Why doesn't the US own up to that? Why doesn't that play into desiding to start a war. (I learned a little Tae Kwon Do for confidence and started winning fights other kids started instead)

Is that enough, to get punched a few times? Why didn't we attack some country when the USS Cole got bombed? Or Montana when the OK City bomb went off? Okay, so I'm going a little over the top, but so is Bush and all these sheep following Bush into an old testament war. THAT WE (ths US) ARE GOING TO START!!!

Doesn't that strike a cord in you? Fuck oil. I'll ride my bike and work on hyrdogen.

Share the day,
Seer

Re: Re: okay.. a little calmer now..
 

Dirty little secret made so obvious by history. Yes. Yes a nation must be attacked before it can attack OR else would indeed the enemy of mankind. Threat assessment alone is why nations make major mistakes and attack other nations. Decent and respected nations wait to be attacked before going to war.

George Jr advocates the principals of Japan in Peral Harbor, Hitler in Russia, Napolean throughout Europe, Johnson in the Gulf of Tonkin, and Kim Il Sung in Korea. Only bad guys attack first because they 'feel' threatened. No decent American advocates a surprise attack on another nation. None.

Sorry. But it is necessary for people to die before justification exists to attack another sovereign nation. Individuals are expendable when measuring the integrity of a nation. Right wing extremists advocate such anti-American and anti-humanity concepts of surprise attack. No wonder extermists love a mass murder who nearly brought the world to total nuclear war - Prime Minister dichead.

You have never seen me so strongly criticize any politican in how many years of posting even back in The Cellar Mark I. I don't think many really appreciate how dangerous this administration was even during a silly little Chinese spy plane incident. It was a nothing event that could have led to American attacks on China - because they perceived a threat to America. The consequences of that mistake would have been felt even a decade later. Reagans stupid use of A-6s from carriers and the USS NJ against Lebanon had the same adverse consequences a decade later. Understand that supporting this George Jr 'Pearl Harbor' mentality puts one in a category with Tojo and Nazis.

You are expected to understand Robert Kennedy's comments when he said, "I now know how Tojo felt when he was plannig Pearl Harbor". To side with George Jr's extremist right winger on this issue would be to support Tojo's position in Pearl Harbor.

The old expression is that those who fail to learn from the lesson of history are destine to repeat those mistakes. We know that George Jr has woefully insufficient understanding of the world. We are expected to hold his feet to the fire when he talks dumb. We are expected to deny him support if he unilaterally surprise attacks another soveriegn nation. That is exactly what a loyal opposition must do. A US surprise attack on another sovereign nation is reason sufficient for impeachment as a direct violation of the Constitution of the US.

I don't like Cellar backquoting; it won't work if you're replying to something with more than one quote in it.

<blockquote><i>Um, yes. How can you be "defending" yourself if you are offensively attacking someone? That just make no sense at all.
</blockquote></i>

If you reasonably belive you are in danger, you are defending yourself. You're not required to actually wait until the attack is manifest.

Not that hard to understand.

<blockquote><i>
Is that enough to justiy, say, killing them, a few by standers, and a few million dollars worth of infrastructure?
</blockquote></i>

No. The use in force in self-defence is only justified to the extent that you believe it is necessary. You learned that in the TKD dojo, didn't you?

<blockquote><i>
Okay, so I'm going a little over the top...
</blockquote></i>

Actually, it's a *lot* over the top. It just *looks* like a little next to tw.

You might want to try to curb your tendency to hyperbole.

Sorry, Maggie. I can't handle your system, which doesn't indicate who those quotes are coming from. I'm not into reading the thread over again to see where I can find those quotes you are referencing ... or are you just pulling them out of your ass? ;)

They're from seer, in the note just before that long, foaming rant from tw.

Hey now, let's not start going soft on the boy!

Don't forget that his post was one big run-on sentence. He misspelled the word "because". The phrase "While nice on paper" should have been surrounded by commas. Also, the word "facts" should have been singular.