To echo somebody above, that would make you ethical, not moral. Have had this fight many times but there is a difference. You can not have Good / Evil without religion as Good / Evil imply a post existence accounting. Without religion, you can only have best / worse for me / society.
An example here (using Christianity and true Catholics, not the modern relativistic ones):
It is Good (tm) to deny abortion in all cases. It is unethical to deny abortions in all cases.
That might be true but I have some personal experience with it and if the shoe fits.
In the last 7 years I have seen my parents go bankrupt because they don't want to make financial lifesystle sacrifices, seen two coworkers go bankrupt for the 2nd and 3rd times, seen the government once again bail out the airlines with my tax money. None of these folk suffered any hardship (often offloading their assets onto family / friends) and started the lifesytle that led to bankruptcy immediately upon having their debts wiped. Society should not have a cushion for failures...they can starve. Lack of any punishment or hardship from bankruptcy encourages shoddy financially behavior. If my coworker was on the street sucking dick with no house, car, or assets, maybe, just maybe after he pulled his life back together he wouldn't be going bankrupt a third time.
Bah. Contracts are formalized social obligations. Legality should have nothing to do with contracts. If I say I will do A then I should do A as I agreed to it in good faith, legal or not. If you never intended to do A, then you shouldn't tell me you will. Using legal loopholes to get out of personal obligations pissed me off. A good example is the bankrupt kings. Folk who accrew an amazing amount of debt with no intent to pay it off only to screw the debtor because they can legally get around it by going bankrupt.
That is the moral equiv of what this guy is saying. He is saying sure I told you I would do this and its nice that you made good on your obligations to me upholding your side of the social contract but fuck you, I can use legalize to get out of it. These folk should be shoot on site. Agreements between 2 folk predate formalized legalize, they should be upheld regardless of the legality of the terms (EXCEPTION: Agreements have to be made without physical or threat of direct coercion).
If you want to sign me over your firstborn for a new car, your SOL when the time comes, time to pay the piper and all. You got your car. Folk seem to forget the piper was the good guy in this story... its a tale that should be taught as moral law to the youth yet has sadly fell out of style. Hate this modern culture of me me me and how it violates a persons right to liberty and pursuit of happiness by holding one accountable for their obligations. Don't want to inconvience somebodies life. Can you honestly tell me we would be having this conversation if Microsoft decided when this guy was there not to uphold their part of the contract and not pay the guy while making him still work. No we wouldn't, would still be calling Microsoft evil. Same diff with this guy.
Fucking activist judges breaking established social norms. Got a tree and rope for all of them. This guy though doesn't deserve even that.... there are cicles of hell reserved for folk like him.
Bah, nothing suggests in the entire interview that he had ethical or moral issues with it (against his conscience). I actually applaud him for his honesty and non post revisionist political correct fluff. You ever notice how any German you talk to in Germany that lives W.G. always fought on the E. Front and all the Germans living in E.G. always fought on the West Front even though if you think about it, this doesn't really make sense. How nobody over that age of 50 ever supported US segregation, how every S. African you talk to was against apartheid. These are the folk I despise. I am fine with folk changing their opinion but to deny you had one in the first place bothers me to no end. The man felt what he did was right and doesn't need to apologize for it regardless of the modern PC movement.
As for thinking this attitude brought the Nazi regime or made WWII possible, give me a break and go read some history books. The repression of Germany by France and England brought about WWII more than anything the Nazi's did. The general population of Germany supported the Nazi's, just like folk supported Stalin, the Japanese Emperor, and Lincoln.
As for your last comment, not quite sure I understand what you are asking or how it applies to the do what you are told argument. Soldiers get paid to die, it is what they do. Nobody anywhere involved in the planning for those tests felt bad for the soldiers at the time. The felt those soldiers lives were worth the greater medical good and containing communism. As a good argument on the morality of this, read the article by Carlos Escude titled "Reflections on Cultural Superiority and the Just War: A Neomodern Imperative" (http://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/278.html"). While I don't agree with the conclusion (he would call me a follower of Prop A) it makes a good read and argument on why these actions (DoD exposing its own soldiers to radiation, being happy you made the bomb) might be moral.
Missing the fine point here, I agree with the pot calling the kettle black argument. Thats not my point. Stating I hate a culture that doesn't respect other cultures nor leave them alone. Not stating I hate a culture that hates other cultures. Fine line but different point nevertheless.
Suprised to find we agree on the major points, just interpet them differently.
But we didn't violate any UN accepted rules.
I would agree with this stated solely because US unilateralism is a UN accepted rule and the world cannot afford economically to boycott us the way to impose on others. It was accepted blacks were subhuman also, doesn't make it right or legal.
Well, that's the point, the UN *did* approve of the Gulf War, *which never ended*. Again, this is what the law says. It's not about doubletalk, it's the actual law.
Negative on this one and you need to read the treaty ending the war. GW1 ended in a peace treating (and estabilished postwar sactions simliarly to the Treaty of Versaille(?sp) on Germany WWI. Your statement is like saying if France invaded Germany in 1939 it would not have been WWII, but a continuation of WWI. The only official armistace in the last 20 years I am aware of is the US and Korean.
And yes, the UN did not approve those other invasions, but *no one* in the UN seriously contended they were illegal,
Agree because even though no body likes to admit it openly, they are fond of the US doing their dirty work, that which they do not have the political will to do. which only proves the point: the UN has never consistently held aggression as a violation of the UN charter, and does so only when it suits them to, because they happen to disagree with a particular engagement. This sucks the force out of what few and vague rules the UN has on the subject.
Agreed but in doing so, the US needs to quit using it to justify their actions. Just honestly admit they are doing it unilateral reasons. Regardless of political niceties, it is still deception even if everybody already knows it. The problem here is the sheeple of Amerika are unaware and actually believe the US is complying with international law as opposed to breaking internation law in socially acceptable ways.
That respect is not absolute, and the UN charter never intends it to be, as the right of self-defense is also defined in the same charter, Intent is not the same as as written. To vague and open to interpertation and leads to abuse and ineffectiveness. On a personal note here, I am a firm believe in absolute sovereign rights for the record.
which almost everyone agrees gave the U.S. the right to invade Afghanistan (for example).
I would disagree with that statement, especially in the Muslim world, US academia, and european students and intelligentia. We fully reconginzed the Taliban government and were working trading agreements with them, they were no rogue nation (whereas Iran we have no formal relationship with). We no more had the right to invade Afghanistan to capture a criminal than we the right to invade Panama to capture a drug dealer or Canada for refusing to extradite a vietnam war deserter. We may of had the right in a absolute soveriegn nation sort of way, but not in compliance with international law.
Where was the uproar over the supposed illegality of Kosovo? There wasn't any, not from the UN member states.
You are wrong on that one. Greece, Russia, and most Slavic nations had a major uproar over this. The Russians in defiance of NATO flew their BiH contigent into Pristina and captured (let in) the airport hours before NATO took it. The west may not of had an uproar but the east did.
This is shifting the goalposts. You were talking about the illegality of the invasions, and that is what I responded to. I won't respond to changes of subject.
Fair enough
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Al Queda was not a UN member, Afghanistan was. Iraq did not threated or use force in GW2,
Nobody said I'm perfect:).... but not sure this is hypocrypsy. Its like stating you are pro-life but support kill abortion doctors. Its all about the greater good. Its hard to find absolutes in social and belief contructs, too easy to find sole exceptions. A single exception does not break the rule though in a social constructs. If everybody on the planet was proven to believe 1+1=2 and one sole guy thought 1+1=3, doesn't invalidate 1+1=2 nor the statements that everybody believes 1+1=2 even if logically wrong.
There are no sovereign rights in war, just multiple parties trying to win. Just pointing out that citizens of a warring party (to include theirs) are not innocent nor noncombatants. You are guilty of material support if nothing else and last I checked, logistics are valid military targets.
You again:)... not blaming the US for an increase it theft. I am blaming the US for an increase in petty theft and social acceptance of it. You just don't see much petty theft in Saudi where they chop their hands off. If you are going to risk life and limb, you steal big. Normal folk do not really need to worry about their personal property been stolen.
I like how if you critize the USA you are a hate-fill spouter of anti-American jingoism but if you critize North Korea or Iran you are a good patriotic america. Do as we say, not as do; right. As for hate filled, not really. I live a nice relaxing life outside the US. Its just when I am around Americans (as I am currently) I lose my mind. Just can't deal with the modern america me me me can't play in nice in the sandbox with others culture. Granted I am biased in that I spend 99% of my American time with soldiers but they represent a good cross section of america. Nothing like having a fat fucking troll chick soldier screaming at me to slow down as I blow by her in my car or tells me I can't where sandles in the chow hall while her fat ass is breaking those same army regs by not passing a PT test, overweight, and having sex (violating gen order 1). Americans have a fucking serious do as I say, not as I do problem. And before crying about how this is an anti American stereotype, serious try traveling and quit just saying I am wrong. It is an american problem and becomes more and more of issue in other countries as they americanize.
Can you give one example of such a violation of international law? The Iraq invasion did not violate international law. Neither did Afghanistan. Got any other recent examples?
While the UN is not international law per sae, we are a member and like to abuse it to our own means to look good. Try reading Chapter 1 of the charter. Here are some key quotes:
"1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"
UN never approved NATO invasions of Kosovo or Afghansistan. UN never approved (other than American doubletalk) the COW invasion of Iraq.
"2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
Like we did with Grenada, Panama, and Vietnam. How about us conveniently ignoring the Palestinians, the Kurds, the Basque, the Catalans.
"3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and"
Like our rabid policy of not funding 3rd world sex or HIV education because it promotes the use of condoms (evil non-Christian sex oh my!!!)
"Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."
Just like we respected the SOVERIGNITY of the Iraq government, the Afghans, the Vietnamese, Yugoslavia.
"3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Yeah, Amerika is big on that one.
As for other international law, how about the Geneva condition and treatment of prisoners. How about not killing civilians (oh wait..its ok to kill innocent iraqi's but not them us)...its ok for us to parade Iraqi prisoners on TV but not them us. How about international maritime law and the Monroe Doctrine or the regular use of US naval power in international waters to detain drug and arms ships outside our jurisdiction.
"According to all accepted treaties regarding warfare, civilian targets are not, in general, valid."
Yet its ok to kill indiscriminately Iraqi citizens because they are sandniggers. I have worked in Baghdad for 6 months now and sitting around the chow halls you here soldiers left and right joking about shooting those sand niggers just because they wanted to. You see gate guards shoot kids for throwing rocks. See convoys blow passenger cars up because they approached closer than 100 meters (though its hard to read the stay back sign from farther than 40 meters because of its small print). A good pilot friend of mine said it best, "a that new high speed 500lbs bomb maybe smart and able to hit a toilet, but its still a fucking 500lb bomb with one hell of a kill radius"
People get me wrong, I am not AGAINST this shit. Might makes right and that has always been the law of the land, to the spoils go the victory, and the history books are written by the winner BUT I hate the hypocrisy of it. If we want to play bully and kill folk for no reason other than personal whim, that fine; but we need to fess up to it... not try and hide it behind some glorious lie. Goebels would be p
Bah... if your fucking imperialist government would quit meddling in the affairs of others AND FUCKING RESPECT SOVERIEGN rights as promised by international law, maybe you wouldn't get blown up. I doubt you like it when China or Ethiopia tell your governments what to do. How would you feel if France invaded the US over WMD's and human rights (death pen). You don't see any supposed terrorists bombing Switzerland do you.
Besides, all your citizens are valid targets and participants in the war... not innocent in the slightest. You pay taxes and those taxes fund the war effort. Can't invade others without money. Children grow up to pay taxes and serve as foot soldiers. Don't like it, use that beloved democracy and change your leaders who are getting you killed.
Jingoism as it may be, it doesn't change the FACT that I have never once been ripped off, robbed, or seriously threatened outside the US in all my travels and living. It doesn't change the fact that US type crime (read arbitrary violence and theft) rises as countries are *americanized*. Not saying theft and violence doesn't exist outside the US in its own form (honour crimes, hate crimes, etc), just saying the US promotes and glamorizes it in the same way obeseity rates are raising around the world as people adopt american diets.
"Or do you think it is someone else's responsibility to make sure no one steals your items?"
As long as I am forced to pay taxes to *protect* me and laws limit my rights to protect my items, then YES, I do expect (read the police who get paid to do this) somebody to protect my items.
"Yes, it sucks that there is a lot of theft in the modern world. It's a terrible thing. But your items are your responsibility, period."
Unless I have the legal right to proect my items to the extent I feel necessary then they are not my responsibility. Unless I have a absolute right to shoot people for breaking my window or kids for tagging my property, it is societies problems. Either give me the rights or quit stealing my money to pay for police that don't do their job.
Amen and its not a particular jab at Americans. Cultures that get "americanized" have the same issue....starting to notice more and more petty 'I want it now' theft in Western Europe.... we have modern culture of me me me. I am an American by birth and have lived and worked in 12 countries on 4 of the 7 continents to include 3rd world ghetto's. You go by a closed for the night shop in the middle of Germany or even better, Cairo and will see items left insecure where they were ready for the next day. You do that in most of America and your shop items won't be there tomorrow. In 3 years of living in Sarajevo, BiH I never locked my house or car doors once... would leave my windows down, laptop sitting out, no problem. In the last 6 months I lived in the US I had two laptops stolen out of my car. About 4 years before that during a 2 year US stint to work on my degree a bit more, had a laptop stolen and my house broken into twice. Learned its actually cheaper just to leave your windows down at night as they will break you windows out whether you have items of value or not... it might be in the trunk as the cops told me and they wanted trunk release access. You tell me, what are *reasonable* measures besides living in fear of my worthless fellow citizens whose society teaches them its ok to steal besides moving to a small rural town? It is a big American problem and if you don't think so, go live in a foreign country (not visit, you don't really get a feel for the local culture). I feel safer driving to the Baghdad Airport from the Green Zone than driving through parts of America. It least I know exactly where I stand with folk here.
Thats the prob with socially acceptable crimes, everybody blames the victim. Think of it this way: You leave you car doors and windows open unlocked with a laptop in the back downtown. It gets stolen. People will usually say "What did you expect" or "Had it coming" but give me break, the real problem here is somebody stole your gear. You have no obligation in a law abiding society to ever lock anything. Its not a crime. Its a crime for people to steal and misuse items not theirs.
Had this happen to me twice in the real world. Both times the cops and insurance company made me feel as I if I did something wrong. Americans seem to have this ingrain belief that if it isn't locked down, you must want me to steal it. Bullshit.
While possible offtopic would like to warning the poster though he mentions he is getting a commerical line.
As a former theatre level Information Assurance Manager, VOIP works through the great DOD firewall in the sky (to include SWA). I know the current IAM and while he is a good guy, you never know when command is going to get in the mood to bust troopers for stupid shit (like non AKO IM). VIOP is against AR 25-2 and CENTCOM 25-260.... watch your ass, with all going on your don't need a ART15.
You are only part of the market though. Plenty of regulars who sit here all day (or not) for various reasons (some work out of here, some like the atmosphere) who drink a single cup of coffee in 7 hours but happily pay for net access.
Believe it or not (gasp), some people go to internet cafe's for the connection, not the coffee. Imagine.
Just a quick comment here. The military does do wireless classified (Type 1, up to US SECRET) LAN's. NSA approved the gear a little while back. See http://www.govcomm.harris.com/secure-comm/ for more info. Along these same lines, they also make Type 1 secure GSM phones, http://www.gdds.com/sectera/gsm/index.html.
The wallpaper technology is mostly to prevent folk with personal cellphones from using them in secure area's (SCIF's for exapmle). Military isn't worried about military grade communications getting cracked. They ARE worried about all those unsecure personally owned wireless devices (PDA's, phones, laptops, toasters) that folk bring into their SCIF's.
I have to agree with this. I have a '02 Focus TDI (thats Turbo Diseal al for you Americans) and it runs great.
12G tank, ~60kmg.
~190kph top speed and surprisingly handles well up to around ~170kph
Handles great on these bosnian mountain roads (to include cornering)
Nice acceleration
Only real complaint is they have an overly sensitive clutch. Prone to stalling when going into 1st (and yes I know how to drive...been driving manual for ~9 years now)
But as for the initial comment, American Focuses == POS. I was back in the states last year and rented one. No acceleration, corners like shit, governor kicks in ~110 mph. Maybe 20mpg highway. Had to fill up on a 400 mile drive twice.
This law really needs to be modified to include child pornography.
As an internet discussion about censorship goes longer, the probability of a statement about how the subject or its inverse protects pedophiles and child pornograph approaches one.
Not sure how closely you follow Al Jazerra and Middle Eastern politics, but unbiased non-pro western reporting by Al Jazerra is a thing of the past.
Before the war, they were a semi-independent media agency, the only major one in the Middle East. Shortly after the war (maybe two weeks back, don't remember the exact date of the annoucement), the head of Al Jazerra was sacked by the Qatar government and replaced with a Qatar government appointed individual. This was clearly done (and semi officially side channeled in diplomatic / intel circle's) to appease the west's concern with non pro western reporting by a major international news outlet.
The days of fair non western partial reporting of major middle eastern events by Al Jazerra are over.
Yes.. by what I claim to be my homepage (the infamous goatse.cx) discredits what I wrote. goatse.cx is not my homepage, in the same way Eol1 is not my real name (surprise surprise)
As for you flaming, thats your business. You don't have to believe me though, federal regs are open to the public... ones that govern my position specifically are AR 25-1 and AR 380-19 (both DA)... which build upon existing DoD and federal regs. Go read them for yourself and tell me I am wrong.
But as stated above, I am a federal employee. I am also working outside US territory where only federal law and regulation applies.
As my other post comments, I am legally bound not to discover it or even look. I would even have to justify why I broke the law finding it if I stumbled across it.
Only personnal legally authorized to violate my users privacy are federal investigators with a warrant or a 15-6. I am nor have either.
Slashdot Mirror
To echo somebody above, that would make you ethical, not moral. Have had this fight many times but there is a difference. You can not have Good / Evil without religion as Good / Evil imply a post existence accounting. Without religion, you can only have best / worse for me / society.
An example here (using Christianity and true Catholics, not the modern relativistic ones):
It is Good (tm) to deny abortion in all cases. It is unethical to deny abortions in all cases.
That might be true but I have some personal experience with it and if the shoe fits.
In the last 7 years I have seen my parents go bankrupt because they don't want to make financial lifesystle sacrifices, seen two coworkers go bankrupt for the 2nd and 3rd times, seen the government once again bail out the airlines with my tax money. None of these folk suffered any hardship (often offloading their assets onto family / friends) and started the lifesytle that led to bankruptcy immediately upon having their debts wiped. Society should not have a cushion for failures...they can starve. Lack of any punishment or hardship from bankruptcy encourages shoddy financially behavior. If my coworker was on the street sucking dick with no house, car, or assets, maybe, just maybe after he pulled his life back together he wouldn't be going bankrupt a third time.
Bah. Contracts are formalized social obligations. Legality should have nothing to do with contracts. If I say I will do A then I should do A as I agreed to it in good faith, legal or not. If you never intended to do A, then you shouldn't tell me you will. Using legal loopholes to get out of personal obligations pissed me off. A good example is the bankrupt kings. Folk who accrew an amazing amount of debt with no intent to pay it off only to screw the debtor because they can legally get around it by going bankrupt.
... its a tale that should be taught as moral law to the youth yet has sadly fell out of style. Hate this modern culture of me me me and how it violates a persons right to liberty and pursuit of happiness by holding one accountable for their obligations. Don't want to inconvience somebodies life. Can you honestly tell me we would be having this conversation if Microsoft decided when this guy was there not to uphold their part of the contract and not pay the guy while making him still work. No we wouldn't, would still be calling Microsoft evil. Same diff with this guy.
... there are cicles of hell reserved for folk like him.
That is the moral equiv of what this guy is saying. He is saying sure I told you I would do this and its nice that you made good on your obligations to me upholding your side of the social contract but fuck you, I can use legalize to get out of it. These folk should be shoot on site. Agreements between 2 folk predate formalized legalize, they should be upheld regardless of the legality of the terms (EXCEPTION: Agreements have to be made without physical or threat of direct coercion).
If you want to sign me over your firstborn for a new car, your SOL when the time comes, time to pay the piper and all. You got your car. Folk seem to forget the piper was the good guy in this story
Fucking activist judges breaking established social norms. Got a tree and rope for all of them. This guy though doesn't deserve even that.
Bah, nothing suggests in the entire interview that he had ethical or moral issues with it (against his conscience). I actually applaud him for his honesty and non post revisionist political correct fluff. You ever notice how any German you talk to in Germany that lives W.G. always fought on the E. Front and all the Germans living in E.G. always fought on the West Front even though if you think about it, this doesn't really make sense. How nobody over that age of 50 ever supported US segregation, how every S. African you talk to was against apartheid. These are the folk I despise. I am fine with folk changing their opinion but to deny you had one in the first place bothers me to no end. The man felt what he did was right and doesn't need to apologize for it regardless of the modern PC movement.
As for thinking this attitude brought the Nazi regime or made WWII possible, give me a break and go read some history books. The repression of Germany by France and England brought about WWII more than anything the Nazi's did. The general population of Germany supported the Nazi's, just like folk supported Stalin, the Japanese Emperor, and Lincoln.
As for your last comment, not quite sure I understand what you are asking or how it applies to the do what you are told argument. Soldiers get paid to die, it is what they do. Nobody anywhere involved in the planning for those tests felt bad for the soldiers at the time. The felt those soldiers lives were worth the greater medical good and containing communism. As a good argument on the morality of this, read the article by Carlos Escude titled "Reflections on Cultural Superiority and the Just War: A Neomodern Imperative" (http://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/278.html"). While I don't agree with the conclusion (he would call me a follower of Prop A) it makes a good read and argument on why these actions (DoD exposing its own soldiers to radiation, being happy you made the bomb) might be moral.
Missing the fine point here, I agree with the pot calling the kettle black argument. Thats not my point. Stating I hate a culture that doesn't respect other cultures nor leave them alone. Not stating I hate a culture that hates other cultures. Fine line but different point nevertheless.
Suprised to find we agree on the major points, just interpet them differently.
But we didn't violate any UN accepted rules.
I would agree with this stated solely because US unilateralism is a UN accepted rule and the world cannot afford economically to boycott us the way to impose on others. It was accepted blacks were subhuman also, doesn't make it right or legal.
Well, that's the point, the UN *did* approve of the Gulf War, *which never ended*. Again, this is what the law says. It's not about doubletalk, it's the actual law.
Negative on this one and you need to read the treaty ending the war. GW1 ended in a peace treating (and estabilished postwar sactions simliarly to the Treaty of Versaille(?sp) on Germany WWI. Your statement is like saying if France invaded Germany in 1939 it would not have been WWII, but a continuation of WWI. The only official armistace in the last 20 years I am aware of is the US and Korean.
And yes, the UN did not approve those other invasions, but *no one* in the UN seriously contended they were illegal,
Agree because even though no body likes to admit it openly, they are fond of the US doing their dirty work, that which they do not have the political will to do.
which only proves the point: the UN has never consistently held aggression as a violation of the UN charter, and does so only when it suits them to, because they happen to disagree with a particular engagement. This sucks the force out of what few and vague rules the UN has on the subject.
Agreed but in doing so, the US needs to quit using it to justify their actions. Just honestly admit they are doing it unilateral reasons. Regardless of political niceties, it is still deception even if everybody already knows it. The problem here is the sheeple of Amerika are unaware and actually believe the US is complying with international law as opposed to breaking internation law in socially acceptable ways.
That respect is not absolute, and the UN charter never intends it to be, as the right of self-defense is also defined in the same charter,
Intent is not the same as as written. To vague and open to interpertation and leads to abuse and ineffectiveness. On a personal note here, I am a firm believe in absolute sovereign rights for the record.
which almost everyone agrees gave the U.S. the right to invade Afghanistan (for example).
I would disagree with that statement, especially in the Muslim world, US academia, and european students and intelligentia. We fully reconginzed the Taliban government and were working trading agreements with them, they were no rogue nation (whereas Iran we have no formal relationship with). We no more had the right to invade Afghanistan to capture a criminal than we the right to invade Panama to capture a drug dealer or Canada for refusing to extradite a vietnam war deserter. We may of had the right in a absolute soveriegn nation sort of way, but not in compliance with international law.
Where was the uproar over the supposed illegality of Kosovo? There wasn't any, not from the UN member states.
You are wrong on that one. Greece, Russia, and most Slavic nations had a major uproar over this. The Russians in defiance of NATO flew their BiH contigent into Pristina and captured (let in) the airport hours before NATO took it. The west may not of had an uproar but the east did.
This is shifting the goalposts. You were talking about the illegality of the invasions, and that is what I responded to. I won't respond to changes of subject.
Fair enough
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Al Queda was not a UN member, Afghanistan was. Iraq did not threated or use force in GW2,
Nobody said I'm perfect :) .... but not sure this is hypocrypsy. Its like stating you are pro-life but support kill abortion doctors. Its all about the greater good. Its hard to find absolutes in social and belief contructs, too easy to find sole exceptions. A single exception does not break the rule though in a social constructs. If everybody on the planet was proven to believe 1+1=2 and one sole guy thought 1+1=3, doesn't invalidate 1+1=2 nor the statements that everybody believes 1+1=2 even if logically wrong.
There are no sovereign rights in war, just multiple parties trying to win. Just pointing out that citizens of a warring party (to include theirs) are not innocent nor noncombatants. You are guilty of material support if nothing else and last I checked, logistics are valid military targets.
You again :) ... not blaming the US for an increase it theft. I am blaming the US for an increase in petty theft and social acceptance of it. You just don't see much petty theft in Saudi where they chop their hands off. If you are going to risk life and limb, you steal big. Normal folk do not really need to worry about their personal property been stolen.
I like how if you critize the USA you are a hate-fill spouter of anti-American jingoism but if you critize North Korea or Iran you are a good patriotic america. Do as we say, not as do; right. As for hate filled, not really. I live a nice relaxing life outside the US. Its just when I am around Americans (as I am currently) I lose my mind. Just can't deal with the modern america me me me can't play in nice in the sandbox with others culture. Granted I am biased in that I spend 99% of my American time with soldiers but they represent a good cross section of america. Nothing like having a fat fucking troll chick soldier screaming at me to slow down as I blow by her in my car or tells me I can't where sandles in the chow hall while her fat ass is breaking those same army regs by not passing a PT test, overweight, and having sex (violating gen order 1). Americans have a fucking serious do as I say, not as I do problem. And before crying about how this is an anti American stereotype, serious try traveling and quit just saying I am wrong. It is an american problem and becomes more and more of issue in other countries as they americanize.
Can you give one example of such a violation of international law? The Iraq invasion did not violate international law. Neither did Afghanistan. Got any other recent examples?
... not try and hide it behind some glorious lie. Goebels would be p
While the UN is not international law per sae, we are a member and like to abuse it to our own means to look good. Try reading Chapter 1 of the charter. Here are some key quotes:
"1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"
UN never approved NATO invasions of Kosovo or Afghansistan. UN never approved (other than American doubletalk) the COW invasion of Iraq.
"2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
Like we did with Grenada, Panama, and Vietnam. How about us conveniently ignoring the Palestinians, the Kurds, the Basque, the Catalans.
"3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and"
Like our rabid policy of not funding 3rd world sex or HIV education because it promotes the use of condoms (evil non-Christian sex oh my!!!)
"Article 2 The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."
Just like we respected the SOVERIGNITY of the Iraq government, the Afghans, the Vietnamese, Yugoslavia.
"3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Yeah, Amerika is big on that one.
As for other international law, how about the Geneva condition and treatment of prisoners. How about not killing civilians (oh wait..its ok to kill innocent iraqi's but not them us)...its ok for us to parade Iraqi prisoners on TV but not them us. How about international maritime law and the Monroe Doctrine or the regular use of US naval power in international waters to detain drug and arms ships outside our jurisdiction.
"According to all accepted treaties regarding warfare, civilian targets are not, in general, valid."
Yet its ok to kill indiscriminately Iraqi citizens because they are sandniggers. I have worked in Baghdad for 6 months now and sitting around the chow halls you here soldiers left and right joking about shooting those sand niggers just because they wanted to. You see gate guards shoot kids for throwing rocks. See convoys blow passenger cars up because they approached closer than 100 meters (though its hard to read the stay back sign from farther than 40 meters because of its small print). A good pilot friend of mine said it best, "a that new high speed 500lbs bomb maybe smart and able to hit a toilet, but its still a fucking 500lb bomb with one hell of a kill radius"
People get me wrong, I am not AGAINST this shit. Might makes right and that has always been the law of the land, to the spoils go the victory, and the history books are written by the winner BUT I hate the hypocrisy of it. If we want to play bully and kill folk for no reason other than personal whim, that fine; but we need to fess up to it
Bah ... if your fucking imperialist government would quit meddling in the affairs of others AND FUCKING RESPECT SOVERIEGN rights as promised by international law, maybe you wouldn't get blown up. I doubt you like it when China or Ethiopia tell your governments what to do. How would you feel if France invaded the US over WMD's and human rights (death pen). You don't see any supposed terrorists bombing Switzerland do you.
... not innocent in the slightest. You pay taxes and those taxes fund the war effort. Can't invade others without money. Children grow up to pay taxes and serve as foot soldiers. Don't like it, use that beloved democracy and change your leaders who are getting you killed.
Besides, all your citizens are valid targets and participants in the war
Amen
Jingoism as it may be, it doesn't change the FACT that I have never once been ripped off, robbed, or seriously threatened outside the US in all my travels and living. It doesn't change the fact that US type crime (read arbitrary violence and theft) rises as countries are *americanized*. Not saying theft and violence doesn't exist outside the US in its own form (honour crimes, hate crimes, etc), just saying the US promotes and glamorizes it in the same way obeseity rates are raising around the world as people adopt american diets.
"Or do you think it is someone else's responsibility to make sure no one steals your items?"
As long as I am forced to pay taxes to *protect* me and laws limit my rights to protect my items, then YES, I do expect (read the police who get paid to do this) somebody to protect my items.
"Yes, it sucks that there is a lot of theft in the modern world. It's a terrible thing. But your items are your responsibility, period."
Unless I have the legal right to proect my items to the extent I feel necessary then they are not my responsibility. Unless I have a absolute right to shoot people for breaking my window or kids for tagging my property, it is societies problems. Either give me the rights or quit stealing my money to pay for police that don't do their job.
Amen and its not a particular jab at Americans. Cultures that get "americanized" have the same issue....starting to notice more and more petty 'I want it now' theft in Western Europe .... we have modern culture of me me me. I am an American by birth and have lived and worked in 12 countries on 4 of the 7 continents to include 3rd world ghetto's. You go by a closed for the night shop in the middle of Germany or even better, Cairo and will see items left insecure where they were ready for the next day. You do that in most of America and your shop items won't be there tomorrow. In 3 years of living in Sarajevo, BiH I never locked my house or car doors once ... would leave my windows down, laptop sitting out, no problem. In the last 6 months I lived in the US I had two laptops stolen out of my car. About 4 years before that during a 2 year US stint to work on my degree a bit more, had a laptop stolen and my house broken into twice. Learned its actually cheaper just to leave your windows down at night as they will break you windows out whether you have items of value or not ... it might be in the trunk as the cops told me and they wanted trunk release access. You tell me, what are *reasonable* measures besides living in fear of my worthless fellow citizens whose society teaches them its ok to steal besides moving to a small rural town? It is a big American problem and if you don't think so, go live in a foreign country (not visit, you don't really get a feel for the local culture). I feel safer driving to the Baghdad Airport from the Green Zone than driving through parts of America. It least I know exactly where I stand with folk here.
Thats the prob with socially acceptable crimes, everybody blames the victim. Think of it this way: You leave you car doors and windows open unlocked with a laptop in the back downtown. It gets stolen. People will usually say "What did you expect" or "Had it coming" but give me break, the real problem here is somebody stole your gear. You have no obligation in a law abiding society to ever lock anything. Its not a crime. Its a crime for people to steal and misuse items not theirs.
Had this happen to me twice in the real world. Both times the cops and insurance company made me feel as I if I did something wrong. Americans seem to have this ingrain belief that if it isn't locked down, you must want me to steal it. Bullshit.
While possible offtopic would like to warning the poster though he mentions he is getting a commerical line.
.... watch your ass, with all going on your don't need a ART15.
As a former theatre level Information Assurance Manager, VOIP works through the great DOD firewall in the sky (to include SWA). I know the current IAM and while he is a good guy, you never know when command is going to get in the mood to bust troopers for stupid shit (like non AKO IM). VIOP is against AR 25-2 and CENTCOM 25-260
You are only part of the market though. Plenty of regulars who sit here all day (or not) for various reasons (some work out of here, some like the atmosphere) who drink a single cup of coffee in 7 hours but happily pay for net access.
Believe it or not (gasp), some people go to internet cafe's for the connection, not the coffee. Imagine.
Just a quick comment here. The military does do wireless classified (Type 1, up to US SECRET) LAN's. NSA approved the gear a little while back. See http://www.govcomm.harris.com/secure-comm/ for more info. Along these same lines, they also make Type 1 secure GSM phones, http://www.gdds.com/sectera/gsm/index.html.
The wallpaper technology is mostly to prevent folk with personal cellphones from using them in secure area's (SCIF's for exapmle). Military isn't worried about military grade communications getting cracked. They ARE worried about all those unsecure personally owned wireless devices (PDA's, phones, laptops, toasters) that folk bring into their SCIF's.
Amen ... why rehash the truth.
I have to agree with this. I have a '02 Focus TDI (thats Turbo Diseal al for you Americans) and it runs great.
12G tank, ~60kmg.
~190kph top speed and surprisingly handles well up to around ~170kph
Handles great on these bosnian mountain roads (to include cornering)
Nice acceleration
Only real complaint is they have an overly sensitive clutch. Prone to stalling when going into 1st (and yes I know how to drive...been driving manual for ~9 years now)
But as for the initial comment, American Focuses == POS. I was back in the states last year and rented one. No acceleration, corners like shit, governor kicks in ~110 mph. Maybe 20mpg highway. Had to fill up on a 400 mile drive twice.
This law really needs to be modified to include child pornography.
As an internet discussion about censorship goes longer, the probability of a statement about how the subject or its inverse protects pedophiles and child pornograph approaches one.
Not sure how closely you follow Al Jazerra and Middle Eastern politics, but unbiased non-pro western reporting by Al Jazerra is a thing of the past.
Before the war, they were a semi-independent media agency, the only major one in the Middle East. Shortly after the war (maybe two weeks back, don't remember the exact date of the annoucement), the head of Al Jazerra was sacked by the Qatar government and replaced with a Qatar government appointed individual. This was clearly done (and semi officially side channeled in diplomatic / intel circle's) to appease the west's concern with non pro western reporting by a major international news outlet.
The days of fair non western partial reporting of major middle eastern events by Al Jazerra are over.
Yes .. by what I claim to be my homepage (the infamous goatse.cx) discredits what I wrote. goatse.cx is not my homepage, in the same way Eol1 is not my real name (surprise surprise)
... ones that govern my position specifically are AR 25-1 and AR 380-19 (both DA) ... which build upon existing DoD and federal regs. Go read them for yourself and tell me I am wrong.
As for you flaming, thats your business. You don't have to believe me though, federal regs are open to the public
But as stated above, I am a federal employee. I am also working outside US territory where only federal law and regulation applies.
As my other post comments, I am legally bound not to discover it or even look. I would even have to justify why I broke the law finding it if I stumbled across it.
Only personnal legally authorized to violate my users privacy are federal investigators with a warrant or a 15-6. I am nor have either.