Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Jan 2007 08:30 In article <45AB78A2.85C71A50(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> > >> >So what do you expect from this 20K more troops? It isn't enough extra to >> >make a difference so it must be symbolic or political. Please explain how >> >they make anything better. >> >> I don't know if 20K more will do the job. I do know that the key >> is to get the Iraqi middle class back and working. > >Working where ? C'mon, eeyore. It does not become you to pretend to be that stupid. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Jan 2007 08:32 In article <45AB8208.A7E339E2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >> > >> >> >When you call it a "war" you make them soldiers. When they are soldiers >> >> >in a cause against you the other governments can't arrest them. When you >> >> >stop calling it "war" and start calling it "crime", other governments can >> >> >arrest them. This is part of why calling it a war is such an awful idea. >> >> > >> >> But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >> > >> >We are now. >> >> And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. > >Not at all. >A big terrorism trial starts to day. > >Six men planned "murderous suicide bombings" on public transport in London on 21 >July 2005, a court has heard. > >The prosecution alleges they were involved in an "extremist Muslim plot" >targeting the capital - 14 days after the "carnage" of the 7 July bombings. > >Muktar Ibrahim, Manfo Asiedu, Hussein Osman, Yassin Omar, Ramzi Mohammed and Adel >Yahya all deny conspiracy to murder and cause explosions. > >The trial at Woolwich Crown Court in London could last up to four months. >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261899.stm England was a little bit more realistic than Europe. But not by much; the political pressure in England is aping Europe's at the moment. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 15 Jan 2007 08:40 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > > > The Russians were a very major threat in the past. > > If you can recall the event last month, a _Russian_ seemed to > forget what his compatriots could and would do to people who > make messes. If a Russian can forget how it was 20 years ago, > why should I assume that people have not forgotten what happened > 60 years ago? On the contrary, I don't think he'd forgotten at all. Nor do I think ppl here have forgotten WW2 either. That doesn't mean that 60 year old ideas dominate our thinking though. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Jan 2007 08:46 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. > >> > > >> >We are now. > >> > >> And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. > > > >Not at all. > >A big terrorism trial starts to day. > > > >Six men planned "murderous suicide bombings" on public transport in London on > >21 July 2005, a court has heard. > > > >The prosecution alleges they were involved in an "extremist Muslim plot" > >targeting the capital - 14 days after the "carnage" of the 7 July bombings. > > > >Muktar Ibrahim, Manfo Asiedu, Hussein Osman, Yassin Omar, Ramzi Mohammed >and > Adel Yahya all deny conspiracy to murder and cause explosions. > > > >The trial at Woolwich Crown Court in London could last up to four months. > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261899.stm > > England was a little bit more realistic than Europe. But not by > much; the political pressure in England is aping Europe's at the > moment. That is quite funny actually. Britain ( not England btw ) is the big sceptic in Europe. Graham
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 08:57
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>>>message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore >>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's >>>>>>required >>>>>>is >>>>>>international *police* action to stop it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>> >>>>> AND IT IS A WAR. >>>> >>>>No it isn't. >>>> >>>>You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you >>>>declare >>>>war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >>>>rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. >>>> >>>>Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made >>>>official >>>>by >>>>a duly recognised authority. >>> >>> It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all >>> than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and >>> everything it does without having to make a rational argument to >>> anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually >>> seems to gell with far too many here in the US. >> >>Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can be >>declared by the US? > > You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in > the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, > reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. > > I already wrote some material about the debate about war powers for > the president, so folks can refer to that other post for more details > about those powers as planned for by the federal convention. However, > they also never expected to see (and did what they could to prevent > it) the idea of a standing army in the US. They were downright > frightened of the idea and pretty much did everything they could to > prevent any possibility of it. Several Federalist Papers are mostly > dedicated to this problem and it was debated in various legislatures > convened to approve or reject the Constitution. > > I think they honestly believed they had taken all necessary steps to > prevent the possibility of a standing federal army and didn't believe > it would happen. With that assumption in mind, the question of a > president as commander-in-chief was reduced to only one of being the > executive officer over an army formed for specific purposes by the > Congress. And for that, most agreed that the president should be in > command. But this was a case where the Congress had to first act in > order to create an army (which takes money to do.) When the army > exists all the time and is funded all the time, the question > re-arises. And if they had had to face it, I'm sure they would NOT > have permitted him such power. > > They simply didn't believe there was any real risk of a President > running amok with a military presence in the US or elsewhere without > Congressional approval and funding, since that would be needed in > order to create the military that the President would then command. > Since there was no standing army to worry about, a President couldn't > go around fielding a military presence elsewhere without the time and > Congressional funding approvals required. > > They felt sufficiently comfortable with a President being commander in > chief during times of war __enabled__ by Congress. They felt that > they had eliminated any risks of a President as commander in chief at > other times, by removing the possibility of a standing, well-trained > army which, to create, would require Congress to act. But on this > last point, it turns out they were dead wrong. They hadn't removed > the possibility of a standing army and they didn't face the question > of a Presidency in control over a perpetual military force. Thank you for the interesting post. I am still unsure though, in the US can anyone declare "war?" Does there have to be a formal declaration of war? Is it a presidential prerogative or one retained by congress? Can war be declared on things like obesity, heart disease, poverty etc? |