The "War" model

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Yorick: Because 6,500 people died in a single co-ordinated attack from three planes captured by members of a foreign organisation hostile to the United States.

4 planes

Well said!



------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[Moridin]

What a great solution...let's just hope everyone in his network gives themselves up peacefully

bin Laden has already been indicted in NYC for the bombing of the WTC in '93 and on attempts at other terrorist acts in NYC. Doesn't seem to have stopped him. He does not care about our laws and our trials of justice.

This is a war, like Yorick pointed out: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end



------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Except that that voice is ignoring the English Language Tracey. Also, Mr. Bin Laden is not a citizen of the United States, nor is he a resident. If we're going to start trying foreign nationals all over the world for this sort of thing should Japan start sueing/prosecuting the Pilots who droppd the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? What about the President and all in the chain of command? Give me a break. "War" is a perfect description under the English definition and under the circumstances.

Yorick, i might go along with your quibbling over the meaning of the word "war" in this case if Bush wasn't amply demonstrating which meaning of the word he intends to carry out.

He is thinking in the traditional term of War as the use of Military force between rival nations.

That is NOT the correct situation here. We are NOT at war, damnit, and we won't be unless we escalate it into one by reckless use of our military might.

Bush wants to use the phrase "War" so the American people will more readily accept the use of military force he intends to carry out.

What we have are crimes carried out by at this stage an unknown number of people, working in conspiricy with one another.

If we view this properly and legally under our OWN LAWS, that would dictate one course of action. Insisting on viewing this as Pearl Harbor and the Japanese overrruning of the Pacific and WAR leads to another course of action, which Bush seems overeager to follow.

As a criminal case, from the standpoint of OUR OWN LAW, (and remember that the other terrorist incidents in Okla city and the first bombing of the WTC were dealt with appropriately as criminal violations and prosecuted under our criminal law) we should first complete the investigation to be sure we have the right suspects, and then figure out the least harmful way (to others) of bringing them to justice.

In our Pearl Harbor/War model, we seem to be just rushing forward to bomb the hell out of the enemy and whoever else gets in the way.

[Yorick]

You know what pisses me off about this? It highlights American arrogance. Are Palestine and Israel at War? Are the Ulster Unionists and the IRA at War? Are America so large and omnipotent that they are beneath "warring" a repressive government subjegating one of the poorest nations on earth and harbouring a militant religious sect with violent ends.

I'm glad Bush has separated the Taliban from Afgahnistan, and Bin Laden from the Taliban. In earlier years the three would have been seen as merged entities and the "war" Diogenes is proclaiming as pure and "worthy" would have errupted. Much to Bin Ladens joy.

The rules of Warfare change. WWI changed all the rules of combat, bringing trench warfare and minute land gains. Did we stop calling it war? Vietnam had a hidden enemy, rarely seen. Did we not call that a war? So the enemy is not merely a NATION. Well welcome to the new Millenium. The new Empires are multinationals with Coup D'Etats Colonies and Dynasties.

The Emperor of a "new Empire" declared war on an Empire of the old school.

I'm just glad the leaders have their eyes open to the reality of the situation, and are humble enough to take this seriously.

All it will take is for the dissidents revolting in Karachi to grow (15% of the pop at the moment) and overthrow the government and we'll have an antagonistic, pro-Bin Laden nation with 40 nuclear warheads.

Will that be "War" then Diogenes? Bin Laden will have two nations then.

Remember the Golden rule. He who has the Gold rules.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moridin: 4 planes Well said!

Only three attacked. Heros prevented the fourth. Lest we forget.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Yorick, i might go along with your quibbling over the meaning of the word "war" in this case if Bush wasn't amply demonstrating which meaning of the word he intends to carry out. He is thinking in the traditional term of War as the use of Military force between rival nations. That is NOT the correct situation here. We are NOT at war, damnit, and we won't be unless we escalate it into one by reckless use of our military might. Bush wants to use the phrase "War" so the American people will more readily accept the use of military force he intends to carry out. What we have are crimes carried out by at this stage an unknown number of people, working in conspiricy with one another. If we view this properly and legally under our OWN LAWS, that would dictate one course of action. Insisting on viewing this as Pearl Harbor and the Japanese overrruning of the Pacific and WAR leads to another course of action, which Bush seems overeager to follow. As a criminal case, from the standpoint of OUR OWN LAW, (and remember that the other terrorist incidents in Okla city and the first bombing of the WTC were dealt with appropriately as criminal violations and prosecuted under our criminal law) we should first complete the investigation to be sure we have the right suspects, and then figure out the least harmful way (to others) of bringing them to justice. In our Pearl Harbor/War model, we seem to be just rushing forward to bomb the hell out of the enemy and whoever else gets in the way.

Diogenes, did you even listen to the congress speech? He articulated it would be a very different war. He removed it from the methods of WWII. He explained it would be very, very different.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: As a criminal case, from the standpoint of OUR OWN LAW, (and remember that the other terrorist incidents in Okla city and the first bombing of the WTC were dealt with appropriately as criminal violations and prosecuted under our criminal law) we should first complete the investigation to be sure we have the right suspects, and then figure out the least harmful way (to others) of bringing them to justice.

Dio! Oaklahoma involved your own citizens! How can you compare the two!!!



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Yorick: Only three attacked. Heros prevented the fourth. Lest we forget.

Yorick, could you just talk normally, please? There's quite enough high flown language as it is.


------------------

[Tancred]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: As a criminal case, from the standpoint of OUR OWN LAW, (and remember that the other terrorist incidents in Okla city and the first bombing of the WTC were dealt with appropriately as criminal violations and prosecuted under our criminal law) we should first complete the investigation to be sure we have the right suspects, and then figure out the least harmful way (to others) of bringing them to justice.

Bush isn't just after the one man. He wants every international terrorist and every government that promotes, harbours or even just ignores the actions of international terrorists destroyed or reduced to nothing. THAT is the overall objective of Operation Infinite Justice. Once things are finished in Afghanistan, the armed forces will move on, fighting somewhere else, hunting and chasing and killing. Hell, that's not just a war. This is nothing less than a full-blown crusade. If a President says 'we are at war', that's a declaration of war, yes? A foolhardy one, a reckless one, an unnecessary one, a wrong one - doesn't matter what you think of it. It's a war alright - and if it isn't one now, it will be.

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Except that that voice is ignoring the English Language Tracey. Also, Mr. Bin Laden is not a citizen of the United States, nor is he a resident. If we're going to start trying foreign nationals all over the world for this sort of thing should Japan start sueing/prosecuting the Pilots who droppd the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? What about the President and all in the chain of command? Give me a break. "War" is a perfect description under the English definition and under the circumstances.

The crimes were committed on US soil. US law applies. The fact that Bin Laden conspired to carry out this plot on the US from outside of it does not save him under international law.

The US would be entitled to go in and get him, by ordinary rules of law. Enforcing the sentence, if he was tried by court in his absence, which in our law he could be, could mean such things as possible assassination if that was the only way to enforce the death penalty, for instance.

In any case, my whole point is simply that there is no need for us to go off half cocked screaming insanely and reckessly shooting up Afghanistan.

Patience might give us much better results in the end.