Obama Disrespected On Asia Trip

[David Amicus]

I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!

[Martin Edwards]

On 9/6/2016 8:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
>

All I know about Duterte is what I have seen on tv, but does he not seem
a teensy bit unstable?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 2:34:02 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 9/6/2016 8:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> > I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
> >
> All I know about Duterte is what I have seen on tv, but does he not seem
> a teensy bit unstable?

Unstable? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[jack]

Let's see, you have extra-judicial killing of suspected drug dealers, and then when Obama mentions it, you call the US president a "son of a bitch" just before you are supposed to meet him. Even the Chinese and Russians didn't go that far. He seems to forget that someone will be replacing Obama soon.

[Martin Edwards]

It's a fairly common term here. I doubt whether it is really beyond
your comprehension.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Maybe he thinks that Obama smells like Satan?

I'm still not sure how any of that makes him unstable. Besides, if America doesn't treat him well he'll cozy up to the Chinese or the Russians for a while.

This might make for interesting reading. It's been a while since I read about this history and I've forgotten almost all of it except for something similar to this quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyu_Kingdom
"The Ryukyu Kingdom found itself in a period of "dual subordination" to Japan and China, wherein Ryukyuan tributary relations were maintained with both the Tokugawa shogunate and the Ming Chinese court."
And as I read more I found this...
"Ryukyu was a tributary state of China, and since Japan had no formal diplomatic relations with China, it was essential that China not realize that Ryukyu was controlled by Japan. Thus, ironically, Satsuma—and the shogunate—was obliged to be mostly hands-off in terms of not visibly or forcibly occupying Ryukyu or controlling the policies and laws there."

Duarte may have some problems, but unstable? Seriously?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:32:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 1:34 PM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 2:34:02 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards wrote:
> >> On 9/6/2016 8:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> >>> I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
> >>>
> >> All I know about Duterte is what I have seen on tv, but does he not seem
> >> a teensy bit unstable?
> >
> > Unstable? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
> >
> It's a fairly common term here. I doubt whether it is really beyond
> your comprehension.

In this situation I really have no idea what is meant by the term. Is he like a tightrope walker whom someone will push over? Is he likely to be assassinated? Deposed in a coup? Merely insulting the POTUS when there are a lot of other parties who might be interested in an alliance for their own reasons doesn't make you unstable AFAICT. So please, what's the explanation? Also I responded to Jack with some Ryukyu history that might be relevant but I won't repeat here, but I will add this, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/31/now-china-wants-okinawa-site-of-u-s-bases-in-japan.html

[Martin Edwards]

I meant mentally unstable. Dr Huang talks about psychotic breaks all
the time. Do you really not get it or are you jerking my tail?

[David Johnston]

On 9/8/2016 7:57 AM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:32:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards
> wrote:
>> On 9/7/2016 1:34 PM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 2:34:02 AM UTC-4, Martin
>>> Edwards wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/2016 8:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>> I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
>>>>>
>>>> All I know about Duterte is what I have seen on tv, but does he
>>>> not seem a teensy bit unstable?
>>>
>>> Unstable? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>>>
>> It's a fairly common term here. I doubt whether it is really
>> beyond your comprehension.
>
> In this situation I really have no idea what is meant by the term. Is
> he like a tightrope walker whom someone will push over? Is he likely
> to be assassinated? Deposed in a coup?

He's nuts. Nuts enough that he's actively endorsing vigilante death
squads.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

No, I really didn't get that. I didn't even think of it. I only thought of political stability. I don't know much about him so I have no idea why you'd think he's mentally unstable. Please say why you think so.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Isn't he just doing what the electorate expected of him? What they want? Are you suggesting that everyone in the PI insane? Or maybe I don't understand why you think this makes him insane. Certainly a lot of countries have had those without being accused of insanity. I'm not suggesting that death squads are a good thing, I'm just not sure how advocating for them proves that you're crazy.

[jack]

Yes, but the Ryukyus did finally fall to the Japanese, so what's your point then?
BTW, for what it is worth: If you look at the east Asian map you will see a string of islands, from Russian Sakhalin to the north, to the Japanese islands stretching down almost to Taiwan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Malysia; so one might not be too surprised that China would want a piece of the Pacific for itself.

[Martin Edwards]

It's just the impression I get from tv clips.

[Martin Edwards]

Thanks. Why does our friend not get it, or is he being deliberately obtuse?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, jack wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 9:50:59 AM UTC-4, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 9:10:10 AM UTC-4, jack wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:34:31 AM UTC-4, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 2:34:02 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards wrote:
> > > > > On 9/6/2016 8:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> > > > > > I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
> > > > > >
> > > > > All I know about Duterte is what I have seen on tv, but does he not seem
> > > > > a teensy bit unstable?
> > > >
> > > > Unstable? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
> > >
> > > Let's see, you have extra-judicial killing of suspected drug dealers, and then when Obama mentions it, you call the US president a "son of a bitch" just before you are supposed to meet him. Even the Chinese and Russians didn't go that far. He seems to forget that someone will be replacing Obama soon.
> >
> > Maybe he thinks that Obama smells like Satan?
> >
> > I'm still not sure how any of that makes him unstable. Besides, if America doesn't treat him well he'll cozy up to the Chinese or the Russians for a while.
> >
> > This might make for interesting reading. It's been a while since I read about this history and I've forgotten almost all of it except for something similar to this quote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyu_Kingdom
> > "The Ryukyu Kingdom found itself in a period of "dual subordination" to Japan and China, wherein Ryukyuan tributary relations were maintained with both the Tokugawa shogunate and the Ming Chinese court."
> > And as I read more I found this...
> > "Ryukyu was a tributary state of China, and since Japan had no formal diplomatic relations with China, it was essential that China not realize that Ryukyu was controlled by Japan. Thus, ironically, Satsuma—and the shogunate—was obliged to be mostly hands-off in terms of not visibly or forcibly occupying Ryukyu or controlling the policies and laws there."
>
> >
> > Duarte may have some problems, but unstable? Seriously?
>
> Yes, but the Ryukyus did finally fall to the Japanese, so what's your point then?

It took a long time. It is in mankind's nature to struggle even though we fail in the end.

> BTW, for what it is worth: If you look at the east Asian map you will see a string of islands, from Russian Sakhalin to the north, to the Japanese islands stretching down almost to Taiwan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Malysia; so one might not be too surprised that China would want a piece of the Pacific for itself.

No. Of course not. No more than anyone should be surprised that Japan wanted more or less the same thing in the 1930s. I even read a quote from a minor Japanese official, off the record and I'm sorry, but I have no cite, that said that it was believed in some government circles that China was making the same mistakes that Japan had made in the 30s and 40s.

Of course it's possible that China will see The Light. Just as Japan did.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 2:47:05 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 9/9/2016 7:42 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 9/8/2016 7:57 AM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:32:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 9/7/2016 1:34 PM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 2:34:02 AM UTC-4, Martin
> >>>> Edwards wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/6/2016 8:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> >>>>>> I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> All I know about Duterte is what I have seen on tv, but does he
> >>>>> not seem a teensy bit unstable?
> >>>>
> >>>> Unstable? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
> >>>>
> >>> It's a fairly common term here. I doubt whether it is really
> >>> beyond your comprehension.
> >>
> >> In this situation I really have no idea what is meant by the term. Is
> >> he like a tightrope walker whom someone will push over? Is he likely
> >> to be assassinated? Deposed in a coup?
> >
> > He's nuts. Nuts enough that he's actively endorsing vigilante death
> > squads.
> >
> Thanks. Why does our friend not get it, or is he being deliberately obtuse?

Because his behavior is unacceptable to us and our Western sensitivities doesn't imply to me that he's insane or a political failure. He lives in a different part of the world with different priorities. Shouldn't we all be more culturally sensitive and accepting?

[David Johnston]

On 9/9/2016 4:52 AM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 2:42:12 AM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 9/8/2016 7:57 AM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:32:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2016 1:34 PM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 2:34:02 AM UTC-4, Martin
>>>>> Edwards wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/6/2016 8:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>>>> I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> All I know about Duterte is what I have seen on tv, but does he
>>>>>> not seem a teensy bit unstable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unstable? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>>>>>
>>>> It's a fairly common term here. I doubt whether it is really
>>>> beyond your comprehension.
>>>
>>> In this situation I really have no idea what is meant by the term. Is
>>> he like a tightrope walker whom someone will push over? Is he likely
>>> to be assassinated? Deposed in a coup?
>>
>> He's nuts. Nuts enough that he's actively endorsing vigilante death
>> squads.
>
> Isn't he just doing what the electorate expected of him?

You could say the same of Hitler.

[David Amicus]

I doubt the majority of the German people in 1933 were voting for the Holocaust.

[David Johnston]

They were voting in favour of "something" being done about the Jews.
Similarly the Phillipines are voting in favour of turning a blind eye to
murder without knowing just how big that can get.

[David Amicus]

I don't think in 1933 the majority of the German people cared about the Jews. That was a nazi thing.

[David Johnston]

Doesn't matter whether they actively cared about what they voting for,
or just didn't care about it.

[David Amicus]

Here are the political choices the German people had in 1933

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

[Martin Edwards]

That was not true of all the electorate. Many people saw the sense in
getting all German speakers inside the border, though the Sudetenland
had not been included in Germany in 1871, but they were dismayed when
his limitless demands brought a general war.

[Martin Edwards]

In fact Germany was not a notably anti-Semitic country, though obviously
there were anti-Semites. It really got going when Austria was annexed.
The German speakers, like Hitler himself, got the but between their teeth.

[Martin Edwards]

See the post which should come in above.

[Martin Edwards]

No. Next?

[Martin Edwards]

*bit

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Or Obama?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

You make Hitler seem more like Putin than Duterte.

[David Johnston]

Mm. No, not really. Obama's most similar thing are all those drone
strikes in the Middle East, and people elected him without the slightest
idea that he'd order that many assassinations. Not that they object.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Are those assassinations? BTW, liking them or not, doesn't alter the fact that they are or are not assassinations. I'm just curious to know why you think they are. What is the basis of your claim?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Good answer. And let's all tell those nuns with their head to toe covering to sod off.

[David Johnston]

> Are those assassinations?BTW, liking them or not, doesn't alter the

> fact that they are or are not assassinations. I'm just curious to
> know why you think they are. What is the basis of your claim?
>

To assassinate is to kill a prominent person with a surprise attack.
The only reason to not consider them assassinations is that "murder" is
frequently considered part of the definition...but when you order the
killing of prominent people in other countries "murder" is in the eye of
the beholder. The killings in this case are certainly at least
extralegal.

[Martin Edwards]

I don't know about the States, but quite a few of them were born here.
Sod off to where?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Would you consider the death of Admiral Yamamoto an assassination?

> The only reason to not consider them assassinations is that "murder" is
> frequently considered part of the definition...but when you order the
> killing of prominent people in other countries "murder" is in the eye of
> the beholder. The killings in this case are certainly at least
> extralegal.

Are those deaths actually extralegal? Maybe some act of congress, besides a wink and a nod, gives him the power to do this? Certainly the intent here is to kill combatants.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Someplace where they'll be made to uncover their heads and wear miniskirts.

[David Johnston]

They occur outside of the jurisdiction of law.

>Maybe some act of congress, besides a wink and a nod, gives him the power to do this?

Actually an act of Congress give him the authority to kill anyone he
wants outside of the United States. But Congress doesn't have the
authority to make law outside of the United States.

>Certainly the intent here is to kill combatants.
>

With the trick being that one need not carry weapons and fight to be
classed as a "combatant".

[jack]

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-4, David Amicus wrote:
> I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!

On the Philippines:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/world/asia/the-philippines-rodrigo-duterte-vigilante-violence.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

[David Amicus]

Obama must be envious when he hears what these two bit third world dictators do. He must wish that he could do the same. Afterall he wanted to turn the USA into a socialist banana republic.

[David Johnston]

Holy crap that's stupid. Given that Obama spend the first two years of
his time in office bailing out Wall Street and the big corporations it
would be downright nonsensical to think that Obama wanted to turn the
USA into a "socialist banana republic". In fact if he'd wanted to do
that, he would have had an excellent opportunity.

[David Amicus]

Obamacare was just his first step into socializing the country. But the people fought back at the mid-term election with the Congressional elections. He lost his "mandate". If the US had the Brit system he'd have been out of office.

And now Obamacare is self destructing. Premiums continually increase and deductables so high to make the program pretty much worthless. And though young people may have voted for him they wanted no part of Obamacare.

[David Johnston]

On 9/12/2016 1:56 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 12:10:07 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 9/12/2016 12:59 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 10:57:37 AM UTC-7, jack wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-4, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>> I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the Philippines:
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/world/asia/the-philippines-rodrigo-duterte-vigilante-violence.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
>>>
>>> Obama must be envious when he hears what these two bit third world dictators do. He must wish that he could do the same. Afterall he wanted to turn the USA into a socialist banana republic.
>>>
>>
>> Holy crap that's stupid. Given that Obama spend the first two years of
>> his time in office bailing out Wall Street and the big corporations it
>> would be downright nonsensical to think that Obama wanted to turn the
>> USA into a "socialist banana republic". In fact if he'd wanted to do
>> that, he would have had an excellent opportunity.
>
> Obamacare was just his first step into socializing the country.

Actually if he was going to do that, it would have been single payer.
Instead like the rest of his domestic policy it was aimed at protecting
the profits of corporate America.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Perhaps not, but then would you say that all the Allied soldiers who killed Axis soldiers during WWII were doing so outside the law?

>
>
> >Certainly the intent here is to kill combatants.
> >
>
> With the trick being that one need not carry weapons and fight to be
> classed as a "combatant".

Very true. You could be involved in supplying soldiers or ordering them about. You are contributing just as much as Aesop's Trumpeter.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Politics is the art of the doable. Some people I know think that Obamacare was meant to fail so that people would want a single payer system. Because, you know, when a government program fails the sure solution is a far more extensive and expensive government program.

[David Johnston]

Well the law of war did apply to what they were doing.

[David Johnston]

On 9/12/2016 5:28 PM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 6:27:09 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 9/12/2016 1:56 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 12:10:07 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 9/12/2016 12:59 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 10:57:37 AM UTC-7, jack wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-4, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>>>> I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the Philippines:
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/world/asia/the-philippines-rodrigo-duterte-vigilante-violence.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama must be envious when he hears what these two bit third world dictators do. He must wish that he could do the same. Afterall he wanted to turn the USA into a socialist banana republic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Holy crap that's stupid. Given that Obama spend the first two years of
>>>> his time in office bailing out Wall Street and the big corporations it
>>>> would be downright nonsensical to think that Obama wanted to turn the
>>>> USA into a "socialist banana republic". In fact if he'd wanted to do
>>>> that, he would have had an excellent opportunity.
>>>
>>> Obamacare was just his first step into socializing the country.
>>
>> Actually if he was going to do that, it would have been single payer.
>> Instead like the rest of his domestic policy it was aimed at protecting
>> the profits of corporate America.
>
> Politics is the art of the doable.

And it would have been perfectly doable to take over the businesses they
were bailing out instead of just bailing them out. I find it amazing
how quickly people forgot how dire the first year of Obama's term was.

[David Amicus]

The Dems wanted to do single payer but knew the opposition was too great. Now with Obamacare going to pieces they can say they tried to reform healthcare but it didn't work so single payer is now the only solution.

[David Johnston]

Opposition from within their own party, that is.

[Martin Edwards]

I'm not sure that happens anywhere.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Then why doesn't the law of war apply to what Obama is doing?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

I've seen plenty of women wearing miniskirts with uncovered heads.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Didn't Obama have a majority Republican congress for the first two years he was in office?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Opposition from everyone.

That was then.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

And also, I forgot this lesson:

From Samuel 8:19 and 8:20
"...Nay; but we will have a king over us;
That we also may be like all the nations;..."

[David Johnston]

Because the United States is not at war with any of the states in which
he is killing people.

[David Johnston]

<snort> No. Bush's economic collapse led to a sweep that was only
reversed in mid terms. I swear people have the political memories of
goldfish.

[David Amicus]

No, the contrary. The Dems controlled both chambers in his first two years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

[David Johnston]

Excuse me, the economic collapse that occurred during Bush's final year
in office.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Does one have to be at war with a state to be at war?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Oops. My bad. Brain sneeze. Or something. I can't remember the alternate term. Look at me, I'm a fish. A red faced fish.

Why do you call it Bush's economic collapse? I can't recall the root causes right now.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Ok, sorry, I didn't see this post when I posted my previous.

I can't recall what the root causes of that collapse were. Can you refresh my fishy brain memory?

[David Johnston]

When you cross national boundaries without permission to kill people and
yet are not at war with the nations whose sovereignty you are ignoring,
you are acting outside of the law of war, and any other law as well.

[David Johnston]

1. A deficit-fueled economic boom. Actually starting with Ronald
Reagan whose supply-side economics boosted the relatively moribund
economy of the seventies, kicking it into an even bigger and longer
economic boom than that of the 20s. While the deficit shrank during the
Clinton era thanks to the feuding between the Clinton White House and
Congress, no significant progress could be made on actually shrinking
the debt again thanks to the political unacceptability of raising taxes.

However the boom continued thanks to a major technological transition,
with the rise of internet commerce and a plethora of dotcom startups.
When the dodgier startups crashes the economy stumbled a bit, but
recovered. But then Bush's election caused the deficit and the debt to
explode. With a Republican in the White House and the Republicans in
firm control of Congress, the American government's spending soared to
unprecedented heights, and so did the boom, creating a large pile of
money looking for things to invest in.

2. The central banks and regulators who kept interest rates in the
basement for fear that the booming economy and deficit spending would
kick off out of control inflation, and who failed to keep an eye on what
the banks were doing.

3. The bankers who saw that large pile of money going into the stock
market because low interest rates meant that their "safe" investments of
bonds, bank accounts and other financial instruments were producing even
crappier rates of return than usual. So therefore they figured out that
they could "eliminate risk" from offering high risk high return loans by
packaging them to together with more conservative investments in
financial instruments so complicated it was impossible to evaluate the
risk they posed. Of course actually they weren't eliminating risk.
They were just hiding it in new and creative ways. This caused the
housing market to explode since banks were no longer turning down
applicants with bad credit. Instead they were accepting them with terms
that in the long term guaranteed a default.

4. Eventually some of the smarter investment bankers noticed that shit
was being spray painted gold and sold as bullion, and figured out new
and creative ways to sell their less sensible colleagues short. From
there it didn't take long for a industry-wide collapse of trust. Banks
clamped down on short term credit, and overextended investors started to
go bust.

5. And here the regulators made their biggest mistake, not realizing
that Lehman Brothers really was "too big" to let fail. They didn't
intervene, and instead of coming down gradually, the economy crashed
harder than it had at any time since 1929.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

What if the nation whose borders you are crossing doesn't have a legitimate government? Or doesn't have a government that responds to efforts to negotiate with it? What if that nation is harboring people whose intent is to make war on you?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

I'm curious to know if you think this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act played any role in that.

[David Johnston]

The United States has exchanged ambassadors with those governments.

Or doesn't have a government that responds to
> efforts to negotiate with it? What if that nation is harboring people
> whose intent is to make war on you?
>

Whether assassination is justified is irrelevant to whether it is
assassination. You are getting side tracked. However I note that the
United States once harboured people whose intent was to make war on
Canada and wouldn't have had a sense of humour at all, if the British
had gone after them inside the American border.

[David Johnston]

Not a big one. It didn't mandate offering subprime loans and it
certainly wasn't a reason to package them in a way that disguised their
risk and linked them to otherwise solid securities that would be taken
down with them by the default.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

So the killing of Bin Laden was also an illegal act of war? Makes me wonder why Obama hasn't been charged as a war criminal. What do you think the reason is?

>
> Or doesn't have a government that responds to
> > efforts to negotiate with it? What if that nation is harboring people
> > whose intent is to make war on you?
> >
>
> Whether assassination is justified is irrelevant to whether it is
> assassination. You are getting side tracked.

Quite right.

> However I note that the
> United States once harboured people whose intent was to make war on
> Canada and wouldn't have had a sense of humour at all, if the British
> had gone after them inside the American border.

How was that resolved?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

There appears to be some controversy about this.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-4, David Amicus wrote:
> I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!

At least he's an equal opportunity offender.
http://time.com/4338283/rodrigo-duterte-pope-francis-apology-son-of-a-whore/

[David Johnston]

Also? That was one of the assassinations I was talking about, although
there have been many others.

>Makes me wonder why Obama hasn't been charged as a war criminal. What do you think the reason is?

Violating the sovereignty of another nation is not in itself grounds to
be charged as a war criminal although it is grounds for the offended
nation to declare war. But obviously Pakistan isn't going to declare
war on the United States, even if it hadn't been embarrassed by the
revelation that it's secret service was sheltering Bin Laden.

>>
>> Or doesn't have a government that responds to
>>> efforts to negotiate with it? What if that nation is harboring people
>>> whose intent is to make war on you?
>>>
>>
>> Whether assassination is justified is irrelevant to whether it is
>> assassination. You are getting side tracked.
>
> Quite right.
>
>> However I note that the
>> United States once harboured people whose intent was to make war on
>> Canada and wouldn't have had a sense of humour at all, if the British
>> had gone after them inside the American border.
>
> How was that resolved?
>

After five years of of not very effective raids , the United States
under a new president confiscated their weapons and told them to stop
that. Of course that was after learning that the border had been
misdrawn so that the attack actually occurred two miles inside the
United States.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Sheltering an individual who made war on the US? I wonder if that is an act of war.

>
> >>
> >> Or doesn't have a government that responds to
> >>> efforts to negotiate with it? What if that nation is harboring people
> >>> whose intent is to make war on you?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Whether assassination is justified is irrelevant to whether it is
> >> assassination. You are getting side tracked.
> >
> > Quite right.
> >
> >> However I note that the
> >> United States once harboured people whose intent was to make war on
> >> Canada and wouldn't have had a sense of humour at all, if the British
> >> had gone after them inside the American border.
> >
> > How was that resolved?
> >
>
> After five years of of not very effective raids , the United States
> under a new president confiscated their weapons and told them to stop
> that. Of course that was after learning that the border had been
> misdrawn so that the attack actually occurred two miles inside the
> United States.

I'm sorry, but where, when, who?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 2:34:02 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 9/6/2016 8:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> > I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
> >
> All I know about Duterte is what I have seen on tv, but does he not seem
> a teensy bit unstable?

Maybe this will make him unstable.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37370848

""Our job was to kill criminals like drug pushers, rapists, snatchers," he said.

But he also claimed that Mr Duterte's opponents were targeted too, including four bodyguards of a local rival for mayor, Prospero Nograles."

[David Johnston]

It is not.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Or doesn't have a government that responds to
>>>>> efforts to negotiate with it? What if that nation is harboring people
>>>>> whose intent is to make war on you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whether assassination is justified is irrelevant to whether it is
>>>> assassination. You are getting side tracked.
>>>
>>> Quite right.
>>>
>>>> However I note that the
>>>> United States once harboured people whose intent was to make war on
>>>> Canada and wouldn't have had a sense of humour at all, if the British
>>>> had gone after them inside the American border.
>>>
>>> How was that resolved?
>>>
>>
>> After five years of of not very effective raids , the United States
>> under a new president confiscated their weapons and told them to stop
>> that. Of course that was after learning that the border had been
>> misdrawn so that the attack actually occurred two miles inside the
>> United States.

The most recent attack, that is.

>
> I'm sorry, but where, when, who?
>

I'm talking about the Fenian raids. In the wake of the American Civil
War, Irish-Americans started attacking Canada in attacks intended to
make the British withdraw from Ireland. Because that made perfect sense.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

I should have phrased that differently. Harboring someone who was continuing to make war on the US? Using that shelter as a base of operations?

>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Or doesn't have a government that responds to
> >>>>> efforts to negotiate with it? What if that nation is harboring people
> >>>>> whose intent is to make war on you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Whether assassination is justified is irrelevant to whether it is
> >>>> assassination. You are getting side tracked.
> >>>
> >>> Quite right.
> >>>
> >>>> However I note that the
> >>>> United States once harboured people whose intent was to make war on
> >>>> Canada and wouldn't have had a sense of humour at all, if the British
> >>>> had gone after them inside the American border.
> >>>
> >>> How was that resolved?
> >>>
> >>
> >> After five years of of not very effective raids , the United States
> >> under a new president confiscated their weapons and told them to stop
> >> that. Of course that was after learning that the border had been
> >> misdrawn so that the attack actually occurred two miles inside the
> >> United States.
>
> The most recent attack, that is.
>
> >
> > I'm sorry, but where, when, who?
> >
>
> I'm talking about the Fenian raids. In the wake of the American Civil
> War, Irish-Americans started attacking Canada in attacks intended to
> make the British withdraw from Ireland. Because that made perfect sense.

Wasn't Canada subject to the British Crown at the time? Maybe it makes imperfect sense.

[David Johnston]

It was, but that didn't mean that attacking Canada would put any kind of
pressure on legislators who got neither votes nor money from Canada.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 2:34:02 AM UTC-4, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 9/6/2016 8:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> > I love it! The foreign love-fest is over!
> >
> All I know about Duterte is what I have seen on tv, but does he not seem
> a teensy bit unstable?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/philippine-lawmaker-accuses-president-duterte-fentanyl-abuse-article-1.2918009

"Philippine lawmaker accuses President Rodrigo Duterte of Fentanyl abuse: 'It has already driven him to madness'"

[David Johnston]

That would be amusing if true, since Duterte is noted for his advocacy
of murdering drug users. (Not rhetorical. Alleged drug users are being
murdered in the Phillipoines with his blessing.)

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Advocacy? With his blessing? Not rhetorical? Wait. What? Not rhetorical? LMAO.
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/15/white-house-calls-duterte-killing-boasts-deeply-troubling/

"Duterte said in a speech on Monday that as a former mayor he’d patrol on a motorcycle hunting for criminals to kill to set an example for police to follow. Duterte said he was “really looking for an encounter to be able to kill.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/16/duterte-vows-to-continue-war-on-drugs-after-killing-confession

"The Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, has repeated claims that he killed suspected criminals as he vowed no let-up in his war on drugs that has already claimed thousands of lives.

In an hour-long speech on Friday to Filipinos in Singapore, Duterte referred to international news coverage of his claims this week that in his previous role as mayor of a major southern city he killed suspects to set an example for police."

So, I dunno. Maybe a little more than just advocacy. I wonder... I wonder if he'll want a trial when he's done? I'm an advocate for irony.