Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 16 Jan 2007 14:39 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:a4fbd$45ad19d6$49ecff1$28333(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:8ee2$45ad1434$49ecff1$28200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eoilbd$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <C6OdnargkYJ9FTbYnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>>I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that >>>>>>>>the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the >>>>>>>>conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if >>>>>>>>any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't >>>>>>>>be nation against nation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Do you mean like the war of American Independence? The American Civil >>>>>>>War >>>>>>>etc? >>>>>> >>>>>>No. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Yet they were both wars which were not "nation against nation" in the >>>>>sense you rail against. >>>>> >>>>>Your dismissal of the US Constitution on the above grounds is baseless. >>>> >>>>If it is not a "war" then it is a "police action" and doesn't have >>>>any constitutional constraints. >>> >>> >>>What does this have to do with the above? >> >>You surprise me with this question. Please read the sequence again. > > > I am still lost. > > I read it as BAH asking if any Constitutional Scholars have thought about a > war that can't be nation against nation and I mentioned the US has gone > through the "war" of Independence and the Civil "war" - suggesting (maybe > obliquely) that this implies they will have. I think we call it the US Civil War because it had the obvious trappings of a war. But one has to look at how it happened and the politics of it. Northern, official US troops under the command of the president, approached Fort Sumpter in order to take over the command. The military who held it fired on the official USA army, claiming allegiance to The Confederate States of America (officially a rogue alliance.) To declare war would have meant recognition of the Confederacy as being a bonafide independent nation. AFAIK no war was declared and indeed the "Civil War" (just as the Korean one) was a police action. The Revolutionary war was, similarly, from the British standpoint, a police action. Once again because the crown didn't want to give independent nation status to the colonies. A "Declaration of Independence" is meaningless until it has some teeth in it. So it was Brit against Brit. It was said at the time that England had never lost a war, and that in this case it was the sons of Englishmen who had won, so the English still hadn't lost a war. > BAH says "no" in a manner which I read as saying the two examples I gave > were not wars which were not nation against nation or not relevant to her > claims that the constitution was not suited to wars which were not nation > against nation. As a result I replied that BAH's claims were in fact > baseless. > Then you come in with "If it is not a "war" then it is a "police action" > and doesn't have any constitutional constraints" which I don't see as > relevant to this sub-thread. > Are you saying the War of Independence was a police action? (It may well > have been from the UK point of view.) Are you saying the same about the > Civil War? Is all conflict either war or police action? Where military action that looks like a war is concerned that seems to be the case for lack of more detailed accepted definitions. > As I said, I am confused where you comment fits in to the current debate? > If, as I now suspect you are suggesting that the War on Terror is a police > action and as such the constitutional limits on war do not apply, then we > agree. Taking a historical context, yes, that definition fits, and I personally have no objection to calling it that.
From: unsettled on 16 Jan 2007 14:49 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:5957f$45ad25a0$49ecfad$28638(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:45AD055D.DE60C4B8(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Why do you people keep forgetting Syria? None seem to think >>>>>>about Egypt. >>>>> >>>>>No one forgets Syria and people do think of about Egypt. As I pointed >>>>>out to >>>>>you in a previous post both those nations are important. >>>> >>>>< snip > >>>> >>>> >>>>>Now on to some important questions which fall out of your post. Why do >>>>>you >>>>>keep forgetting about Tunisia? None seem to think of Morocco. >>>> >>>>Or Turkey even ? Yet another Muslim nation in the region. >>> >>> >>>The list could go on for some time :-) Not to mention Turkey is sort of >>>at war with Greece (but then, Turkey is a US ally so maybe it is Greece >>>who is wrong - damn those orthodox Christians and their funny dates for >>>Christmas) >> >>Orthodoxy has an advantage at Christmas. Celebrate that one >>and you get to do all your Christmas shopping at sale prices. > > > Good idea - although this year in the UK most "January Sales" began around 1 > Dec. Hype we call "puffing" here in the US (making the deal sound sweeter than it is by using a little deception.) You'll still find even better prices Dec 26th and afterwards.
From: Eeyore on 16 Jan 2007 14:50 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message. > > > >>Do you think they are lying? They don't have to lie. > > > > Interesting concepts. It is assumed in the west that pretty much all > > politicians lie and when ever they make public statements there is at best a > > small kernel of truth surrounded by a husk of spin and PR. > > > > Why do you assume that Middle Eastern politicians and political leaders are > > any different? > > > > In Iran's case, lying may well be in their best interests. > > It is my guess that Baghdad Bob is standard fare for the middle east. You mean Comical Ali ? He was a great laugh. Graham
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 16:01 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:6bdf6$45ad29e5$49ecfad$28734(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:a4fbd$45ad19d6$49ecff1$28333(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> <snip> >>>You surprise me with this question. Please read the sequence again. >> >> >> I am still lost. >> >> I read it as BAH asking if any Constitutional Scholars have thought about >> a war that can't be nation against nation and I mentioned the US has gone >> through the "war" of Independence and the Civil "war" - suggesting (maybe >> obliquely) that this implies they will have. > > I think we call it the US Civil War because it had the obvious > trappings of a war. But one has to look at how it happened and > the politics of it. > > Northern, official US troops under the command of the president, > approached Fort Sumpter in order to take over the command. The > military who held it fired on the official USA army, claiming > allegiance to The Confederate States of America (officially a > rogue alliance.) > > To declare war would have meant recognition of the Confederacy > as being a bonafide independent nation. AFAIK no war was declared > and indeed the "Civil War" (just as the Korean one) was a police > action. Which is why the "war on terror" should not be called a war. Has any one declared "terror" as a bona fide independant nation? > The Revolutionary war was, similarly, from the British standpoint, > a police action. Once again because the crown didn't want to give > independent nation status to the colonies. > > A "Declaration of Independence" is meaningless until it has some > teeth in it. So it was Brit against Brit. It was said at the time > that England had never lost a war, and that in this case it was > the sons of Englishmen who had won, so the English still hadn't > lost a war. Again, none of this is at odds with what I said. While it is easy to debate the use of the word war and it's correct context (remember, I am the one saying the global [insert terms] against terror should not be called a "War" on terror), I think it is incorrect to say the people who framed the US Constitution and its subsequent ammendments were unaware of an armed conflict which could occur without it being a war between nations. >> BAH says "no" in a manner which I read as saying the two examples I gave >> were not wars which were not nation against nation or not relevant to her >> claims that the constitution was not suited to wars which were not nation >> against nation. As a result I replied that BAH's claims were in fact >> baseless. > >> Then you come in with "If it is not a "war" then it is a "police action" >> and doesn't have any constitutional constraints" which I don't see as >> relevant to this sub-thread. > >> Are you saying the War of Independence was a police action? (It may well >> have been from the UK point of view.) Are you saying the same about the >> Civil War? Is all conflict either war or police action? > > Where military action that looks like a war is concerned that seems to > be the case for lack of more detailed accepted definitions. > >> As I said, I am confused where you comment fits in to the current debate? > >> If, as I now suspect you are suggesting that the War on Terror is a >> police action and as such the constitutional limits on war do not apply, >> then we agree. > > Taking a historical context, yes, that definition fits, and I > personally have no objection to calling it that. Ok.
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 16:03
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:dc4c0$45ad2c66$49ecfad$28794(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:5957f$45ad25a0$49ecfad$28638(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:45AD055D.DE60C4B8(a)hotmail.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Why do you people keep forgetting Syria? None seem to think >>>>>>>about Egypt. >>>>>> >>>>>>No one forgets Syria and people do think of about Egypt. As I pointed >>>>>>out to >>>>>>you in a previous post both those nations are important. >>>>> >>>>>< snip > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Now on to some important questions which fall out of your post. Why do >>>>>>you >>>>>>keep forgetting about Tunisia? None seem to think of Morocco. >>>>> >>>>>Or Turkey even ? Yet another Muslim nation in the region. >>>> >>>> >>>>The list could go on for some time :-) Not to mention Turkey is sort of >>>>at war with Greece (but then, Turkey is a US ally so maybe it is Greece >>>>who is wrong - damn those orthodox Christians and their funny dates for >>>>Christmas) >>> >>>Orthodoxy has an advantage at Christmas. Celebrate that one >>>and you get to do all your Christmas shopping at sale prices. >> >> >> Good idea - although this year in the UK most "January Sales" began >> around 1 Dec. > > Hype we call "puffing" here in the US (making the deal sound > sweeter than it is by using a little deception.) You'll still > find even better prices Dec 26th and afterwards. > Over here it was mainly because the shops panic about low sales figures and try to outdo each other. Very little dropped again after Christmas. For years the January sales started on Dec 26 - now they have crept a little further forward trying to get more sales. In the UK there is a big spending slump after Christmas and I suspect the shops are trying to get people to overspend even more before the day at the expense of some post-Christmas sales. |