Are Presidents Entitled to Kill Foreigners?

[MikeyDB]

Niflmir

It's all a matter of degree...right?

Incinerating hundreds of thousands of Japanese with night after night of incendiary bomings then dropping two nuclear bombs on them.....a little over-kill or "just what the doctor ordered"....

Surrounding a compound holding children and women who've done nothing to harm anyone....playing blaring rock music and eventually using an armored vehicle to break through the wall and deny using incendiary devices and the military for domestic problems (both against American law) and over-seeing the deaths of innocent children....."appropriate escalation of response" or simply more American bloodlust.....

Toxifying hundreds of thousands of acres of the planet where children are still being born with deformities and the carnage continues ...long after America and its agent orange and agent purple are gone.... suitable and appropriate action to another "urgent" necessity like WMDs in Iraq.....

Who's the neighborhood bully with the longest list of unbridled violence against men women and children in other nations from Haiti and the Carribbean to Chile and Nicaragua and Indonesia.....

Would that be Russia.....maybe France......perhaps its Britain......

Nope.

We all know who it is....

 

[dancing-loon]

Hi;
an interesting read here!
I think the ordinary American citizens are against the war in Irak now and Iran in the future. The support in the polls is barely 30%, which means that a lot of Republican folks are no longer with Mr. Bush. The only reason that he hasn't been fired yet, is that he is leaving soon anyway.

 

[MikeyDB]

Dancing Loon

Is it the measure of a "democracy" that the will of the citizens of a nation takes second place to the clock? When a people surrender their will, their constitution and their freedoms to corporate cabals and embedded special interests (within the Whitehouse) that nation ceases to be a democracy.

Of course "democracy" was over in the United States at the end of the Second World War and nobody let the common rabble know....

 

[Just the Facts]

If China decided to reaffirm its "right" to Formosa...Taiwan...and launched air strikes against that island, the United States would call it war....

Go get a recently published map and see if you can find Tibet. What's happening in Nepal. Don't tell, the Maoists there are bushies.

If ANYONE were to pre-emptively attack Israel...say Lebanon or Syria or anyone else who the Israelis identify as "terrorists", Americans would call that war....

If? Israel gets attacked every day.

It is the United States who reserves the right to tell the world what is and what isn't "war", what is and what isn't "terrorism", what is and what isn't "democracy"....

We all reserve that right. Everyone has an opinion.

If there's any Anti-Americanism it's for a reason. It might be in response to America's re-definition of the English language when it comes to war politics and corruption....

Have you ever heard of a program, comes on the television, s'called the news? ;-)

It might be because the world (except for Walter of course) is slowly beginning to understand that America and American style political and economic dynamics are behind global warming and rampant corruption throughout the world.....

Funny you should mention that. I was sitting in a second story restaurant on Spadina a few weeks ago, watching traffic go by as I waited for my meal. I was struck by the number of SUV's. It must have been 75% at least SUV's and minivans.

Edit: In the heart of the city!!
My buddies neighbor, lives right downtown, has two SUV's. Shiny clean, gleaming SUV's. These are not off-roader type people. Again, gas-guzzling trucks used for urban transport.

Americans are forcing that?

But like most things.....people will cling to their desperate fantasies and ignore what's happening around them until the manure hits the fan....

You got that right! :thumbup:

 

[Niflmir]

I think those are certainly the relevant histories Mikey.

See, this is what I have an issue with. Now keep in mind that Im not "pro war" etc.

War is messy business. Trying to legislate fairness into it is ridiculous. I also believe that this is why wars go on so long--people try to make them play nice during a war.

Why are there any rules of warfare at all? If folks could be fair and play by the rules there would never be a war.

There are rules of warfare to attempt to maintain humanity amidst a genuine crisis. You are correct, wars should never happen, and that is why the relevant parties are always jockeying for righteousness. I believe in the "Iraq war is Genocide" thread, I posted a link to an international document that rationalized war laws.

If the individuals who attempted to force the warriors to play nice succeeded the wars would not drag on, they would terminate immediately. The very first rule for these humanists is "No aggression." So you defend if shot at, but don't open fire otherwise. Clearly someone always breaks this rule, which is how war gets started in the first place.

Saying it is ridiculous to legislate fairness is equivalent to saying that warriors should have a blank check to commit whatever act they desire. Obviously we don't want soldiers committing rape, so we obviously must have rules on how war can be carried out. Don't for a second think that these laws obstruct "legitimate" warfare.

However, very few wars are legitimate these days. An army invades an invariably weak nation and the opposition they face is mostly made up of militia people and guerrillas. The guerrillas hide in crowds to draw unbalanced response from the invaders, the civilians involved see the lack of balance, interpret it as a lack of justice and join the underdogs: the guerrillas.

The point that I am trying to further here is that you cannot throw out the book without justifying atrocities, and I genuinely mean that: atrocities. Gonzales and his endorsement of simulated drowning pales in comparison to what humans would do given a blank check. But there are some genuinely justified civilian deaths, even in Iraq, which come about from the social climate there and have nothing to do with whether the war had justification to begin with.

However, firing "precision" missiles into Baghdad at the start of the war and killing civilians was not collateral damage. In the terms of the American legal system it was clear and reckless danger, for anyone who knows about the actual precision of non-linear control theory and rocket propulsion. These deaths were completely unnecessary and completely foreseeable.

 

[Niflmir]

Here is the document I mentioned, Triedit. I really recommend reading it if you are interested in the state of humanitarian law during war at the present epoch. I don't remember it using any legalese, but I could be used to it by now.

Just wars, wars of aggression and international humanitarian law

 

[MikeyDB]

Niflmir

Isn't it appropriate and just to reach the conclusion, given the fact that no American uprising against the Bush administration and the puppeteers responsible for turning America into a Banana Republic translates as approval for killing thousands of innocent people?

If a government isn't under the control of its people and its much vaunted "constitution" is vulnerable to re-writes to serve the interests of big money and big profits for the few...isn't it fair to say either...

America is the way Americans want it to be: and that includes killing anyone who stands in their way.

Or

America is in a rapidly escalating decline and the people of America are so out-of-touch with what's going on in their country (or don't care) that their nationhood and their altruistic rehetoric are window dressing and not much more?

Where does the "truth" lay when a citizenry permits its government (particularly more damning when that nation and those people espouse loudly and at great length about how wonderful and perfect their system of government is....to embark on a trip backward through time.....

Back to when Britainia ruled the waves and Spain was slaughtering millions in Central and Southern America... a time-trip back to imperialism but based not on the divine right of kings but he divine right of the lackey feeding the appetites of a disenfranchised people?

 

[Niflmir]

MikeyDB,

I would tend to side more on the state of decline side of that or, but instead of saying the citizens are out of touch, I would instead suggest that the conventional tools of accountability have eroded. I posted here a link on another thread that you might have read or not, but in the context of this direction I imagine my reposting it are justified. Bob "Ballots for Bush" Bennett.

At the same time, the American people are drowning in a pool of extreme propaganda. On the one hand the government posts all sorts of dehumanizing propaganda justifying depriving "terrorists" of basic human rights at the same time as propaganda denying it is happening. Simultaneously, the public from foreign nations demonizes the American public, pushing them into the comforting rationalisations of the government. Drowning in a sea of false information, they tune out or search for independent voices or hope for a better future, hoping that the tools of accountability haven't eroded completely.

Even the picture I attempt to paint is somewhat bleak, and I am trying to lighten it up. I am of course biased in that I view the war in Iraq as a war of aggression and so all the dead Iraqis and Americans in that war weigh in on the heads of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Bennett, Rice and others. But when the people elect officials does every action which follows have the full democratic support, notwithstanding the reality of Bennett? I would say no.

Democracy is hard. It is a full time job to stay informed about all the going ons. Most people don't have that time between their career and their home life. In any case I find it personally difficult to blame individuals who saw the tools of accountability fall apart in their hands, but those who justify the atrocities... Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, CIA flights to secret prisons all over the place, and of course our hands aren't clean either. Don't forget Maher Arar!

 

[Colpy]

I digress, but

this thread reminds me of the story my buddy told me......

When he lived in Texas, his next door neighbour was a red-neck biker type. One day he was showing my friend his new chopped .45 ACP 1911 semi-auto pistol...........my buddy asks (in his best Canadian way) "What do you have THAT for?"

"Oh", replies Red, "This is just for shooting cans............."



"You know, Mexi-CANS, Puerto-Ri-CANS............."

Terrible, racist, politically incorrect, I know, but it cracked me up completely.

 

[hermanntrude]

See, this is what I have an issue with. Now keep in mind that Im not "pro war" etc.

War is messy business. Trying to legislate fairness into it is ridiculous. I also believe that this is why wars go on so long--people try to make them play nice during a war.

Why are there any rules of warfare at all? If folks could be fair and play by the rules there would never be a war.

you make a good point here. In an ideal world war would not happen. once it starts we should all realise that any "rules" laid down are likely to go right out the window. Trying to put rules onto war is a little like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end

 

[dancing-loon]

Dancing Loon

Is it the measure of a "democracy" that the will of the citizens of a nation takes second place to the clock? When a people surrender their will, their constitution and their freedoms to corporate cabals and embedded special interests (within the Whitehouse) that nation ceases to be a democracy.

Of course "democracy" was over in the United States at the end of the Second World War and nobody let the common rabble know....

Hi, Mikey;
thanks for your reply. You are absolutely right! The various lobbies pretty much run the foreign policies, especially the jewish lobby, but also the oil and weapons lobby. I ask, though, WHY is the common rabble so complacent?

 

[EagleSmack]

What about Prime Ministers?

 

[dancing-loon]

What about Prime Ministers?

Yes? What about them? Are you asking about our Prime Ministers and the various lobbies? Do we in Canada have lobbies? Perhaps the Natives' lobby.
I'm not yet familiar with "forum jargon"; please, define your question.

 

[Tonington]

Are Prime Ministers entitled to kill foreigners? I wouldn't say any more or any less than a President.

 

[Albertabound]

Go get a recently published map and see if you can find Tibet.

There's no oil there, nothing to go in for. Also, any one challengeable to U.S. like China is not feasible to attack. They would get their ass kicked if it ever attacked China.

If? Israel gets attacked every day.

You can't seriously consider that an invasion can you? Sending missiles across the boarder does not constitute a take over of any sort.

We all reserve that right. Everyone has an opinion.

We just don't all have a national army at our disposal to back up our opion. It's simple. The American moto is "Do as I say not as I do"

Have you ever heard of a program, comes on the television, s'called the news?

I think you ment to say, s'called the government

I was struck by the number of SUV's. It must have been 75% at least SUV's and minivans.

Well then you should tell you government not to give out tax incentives for those who buy those big gas guselling SUV's. Just goes to show you how big business rules the U.S.

And now on to Berma. Let's see dictorship, 1000 killed, sounds like Iraq to me. Where big brother when you need him? Too busy invading oil rich countries, that's where.