New postal bar code?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
of just up. I guess the post office has changed the bar code?
Did they add information to it?
Will old bar coding still work? (My M/S Word vers 6 prints out the
old style coding.)
Andrew McLaren
I suspect the question is slightly off-topic for this newsgroup; which
is focused on computer folklore. Although, mail barcodes are the kind of
totemic artefact which often excites the Geek mind (cf model trains,
systems of weights and measures, stamp collecting etc).
First question would be: which Post Office are you referring to? The
Royal Mail? Deutsche Bundespost? Australian Post Office? They all use
barcodes to direct mail ...
When I was in the US, I noticed Americans have post offices, too: run by
the US Postal Service. Sounds suspiciously like Socialism - a government
run agency to do what FedEx or UPS could handle in the private sector.
The Commies won't ever get their hands on Health Insurance, that's for
sure.
But ... if you are thinking of the US Postal Service, they have a
website with lots of useful information:
http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2008/pr08_081.htm
http://www.usps.com/mailpro/2008/mayjune/page10.htm
http://www.usps.com/mailpro/2008/marapril/page12.htm
You might find the answer there.
As to the topologically challenging concept of barcodes which go both up
and down, instead of just up, I'll leave that for the professional
geometers to comment on. Moebius barcodes, anyone?
Hope it helps :-)
Andrew
Quadibloc
> As to the topologically challenging concept of barcodes which go both up
> and down, instead of just up, I'll leave that for the professional
> geometers to comment on. Moebius barcodes, anyone?
When I went to the http://ribbs.usps.gov/ web site, it became clear
what was being discussed.
The bar code had one horizontal layer which consisted of timing marks
- a bar in every position.
So, before, the bars were extended upwards to indicate a 1; now,
they're also extended downwards to indicate a 1 in a second row of
information.
John Savard
Andrew McLaren
> When I went to the http://ribbs.usps.gov/ web site, it became clear
> what was being discussed.
Good link, thanks John!
Those barcodes are starting to resemble Ogham even more closely than
before. Soon we'll be using Unicode range U+1680 - U+169F to address our
mail.
Cheers
Andrew
Chris Barts
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> I noticed on my mail barcodes now have lines going up and down instead
>> of just up. I guess the post office has changed the bar code?
>> Did they add information to it?
>> Will old bar coding still work? (My M/S Word vers 6 prints out the
>> old style coding.)
>
> I suspect the question is slightly off-topic for this newsgroup; which
> is focused on computer folklore. Although, mail barcodes are the kind
> of totemic artefact which often excites the Geek mind (cf model
> trains, systems of weights and measures, stamp collecting etc).
>
> First question would be: which Post Office are you referring to? The
> Royal Mail? Deutsche Bundespost? Australian Post Office? They all use
> barcodes to direct mail ...
>
> When I was in the US, I noticed Americans have post offices, too: run
> by the US Postal Service. Sounds suspiciously like Socialism
My spies report that they even have a socialized military! How
well-socialized it is they couldn't say, but it's certainly tax-paid,
tax-funded, and generally on the Government Dole. Why, soldiers even
have welfare-based health care and government-subsidized food! I can
hardly credit the fact a socialized welfare force was ever able to aid
the Soviets in their defeat of Germany.
Hurmph. Next they'll tell me the road system was funded by imposing
taxes on the public.
Eric Chomko
> Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> writes:
It has been that way for yeeeaaars! You act like you just woke up
today and discovered something that was so for decades.
Rumpelstiltskin! Heck, pretty much since WWII the DOD, rather than the
Departments of War and the Navy -whose budgets would fluctuate with
real need- the DOD has been the biggest social program of which the
GOP loves to wrap themselves around like a giant flag. But boy nothing
like using it as the Democrats for tax and spend all thinking that
they are secure and feel good about it.
>
> Hurmph. Next they'll tell me the road system was funded by imposing
> taxes on the public.
Well an aging road system needs more tax now as the highway system is
over 50 in many places.
Heck the NPS is socialistic too when one thinks about it. But could
you imagine what the park system would look like if we left it to
corporations?
Peter Flass
> Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> writes:
>
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> I noticed on my mail barcodes now have lines going up and down instead
>>> of just up. I guess the post office has changed the bar code?
>>> Did they add information to it?
>>> Will old bar coding still work? (My M/S Word vers 6 prints out the
>>> old style coding.)
>> I suspect the question is slightly off-topic for this newsgroup; which
>> is focused on computer folklore. Although, mail barcodes are the kind
>> of totemic artefact which often excites the Geek mind (cf model
>> trains, systems of weights and measures, stamp collecting etc).
>>
>> First question would be: which Post Office are you referring to? The
>> Royal Mail? Deutsche Bundespost? Australian Post Office? They all use
>> barcodes to direct mail ...
>>
>> When I was in the US, I noticed Americans have post offices, too: run
>> by the US Postal Service. Sounds suspiciously like Socialism
>
> My spies report that they even have a socialized military!
Actually, we've been privatizing that for years. I wouldn't be
surprised if there were as many "contractors" as military these days.
How
> well-socialized it is they couldn't say, but it's certainly tax-paid,
> tax-funded, and generally on the Government Dole. Why, soldiers even
> have welfare-based health care and government-subsidized food! I can
> hardly credit the fact a socialized welfare force was ever able to aid
> the Soviets in their defeat of Germany.
Or have the Soviets help _us_ out. Thanks, guys.
Charlie Gibbs
Peter...@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) writes:
> Chris Barts wrote:
>
>> Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> When I was in the US, I noticed Americans have post offices, too:
>>> run by the US Postal Service. Sounds suspiciously like Socialism
>>
>> My spies report that they even have a socialized military!
>
> Actually, we've been privatizing that for years. I wouldn't be
> surprised if there were as many "contractors" as military these days.
A more common word in this context is "mercenaries". The recently
released (and underrated, IMHO) movie "State of Play" (Russell Crowe,
Ben Affleck) is an interesting "what-if" exploration of what could
happen if things get out of hand.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Bill Johnson
> A more common word in this context is "mercenaries". The recently
> released (and underrated, IMHO) movie "State of Play" (Russell Crowe,
> Ben Affleck) is an interesting "what-if" exploration of what could
Agreed. But be aware the "State of Play" movie is a remake - and a mere
pale pastiche - of the original BBC 6 part series, State of Play:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/stateofplay
The British location in the original is just incidental, the story could
be set in any Western democracy. Even spread out over 6 one hour
episodes (instead of a single movie), the original State of Play is
nail-biting, edge-of-seat, entirely realistic and plausible political
drama from beginning to end; with a superb caste including Billy Nigh as
a lovable bastard newspaper editor, and the luminous Kelly MacDonald,
who also starred in "No Country for Old Men".
Cheers
Andrew
jmfbahciv
> In article <hcsr6d$rmu$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter...@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) writes:
>
>> Chris Barts wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> When I was in the US, I noticed Americans have post offices, too:
>>>> run by the US Postal Service. Sounds suspiciously like Socialism
>>> My spies report that they even have a socialized military!
>> Actually, we've been privatizing that for years. I wouldn't be
>> surprised if there were as many "contractors" as military these days.
>
> A more common word in this context is "mercenaries".
Yup. And that was what Rome was using to fight its wars during its
decline. Same thing happened with [can't remember the word] the
Muslim empire. A large piece of Clinton's revamping the military
was to depend on mercenaries and the National Guard; the assumption
was stupidly made to assume only one hot war.
<snip>
/BAH
Eric Chomko
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) writes:
>
> >> Chris Barts wrote:
>
> >>> Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> writes:
>
> >>>> When I was in the US, I noticed Americans have post offices, too:
> >>>> run by the US Postal Service. Sounds suspiciously like Socialism
> >>> My spies report that they even have a socialized military!
> >> Actually, we've been privatizing that for years. I wouldn't be
> >> surprised if there were as many "contractors" as military these days.
>
> > A more common word in this context is "mercenaries".
>
> Yup. And that was what Rome was using to fight its wars during its
> decline. Same thing happened with [can't remember the word] the
> Muslim empire. A large piece of Clinton's revamping the military
> was to depend on mercenaries and the National Guard; the assumption
> was stupidly made to assume only one hot war.
>
Are you saying that anything that Clinton did to the military Bush
didn't or *couldn't* undo?
Wow, after 9 years out of office there is still the "it was Clinton's
fault" ploy from the right. Amazing!
Eric
grey...@mail.com
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> In article <hcsr6d$rmu$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Peter...@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) writes:
>>
>>> Chris Barts wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew McLaren <m...@somewhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> When I was in the US, I noticed Americans have post offices, too:
>>>>> run by the US Postal Service. Sounds suspiciously like Socialism
>>>> My spies report that they even have a socialized military!
>>> Actually, we've been privatizing that for years. I wouldn't be
>>> surprised if there were as many "contractors" as military these days.
>>
>> A more common word in this context is "mercenaries".
>
> Yup. And that was what Rome was using to fight its wars during its
> decline. Same thing happened with [can't remember the word] the
Mamluks. in Egypt.
Same problem was in Renaissance Italy, as pointed out by
Machaivelli(sp)
> Muslim empire. A large piece of Clinton's revamping the military
> was to depend on mercenaries and the National Guard; the assumption
> was stupidly made to assume only one hot war.
>
Blackwater, reportedly, has morphed in some other name `Xe'
(wikipedia) and has extended its services for the US military, again,
reportedly, operating the drones used for assasination in Pakistan.
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
Peter Flass
A lot of that was Rumsfield, maybe in his earlier incarnation. The idea
was that if you wanted to rely on a volunteer military you automatically
got a smaller force backstopped by National Guard. The other part of
this thinking is that you don't need the cooks, truck drivers, and
laundry folk to be military, so you got contractors. Now it seems to be
getting out of hand, even the embassy people have hired guns as guards
instead of marines.
Peter Flass
There you go again. It's a war.
Patrick Scheible
> There you go again. It's a war.
Did we declare war on Pakistan when I wasn't looking?
-- Patrick
Peter Flass
The Taliban and Al-queda. They don't get a free pass just because
they're in Pakistan.
Quadibloc
> The Taliban and Al-queda. They don't get a free pass just because
> they're in Pakistan.
The United States is not at war with Pakistan.
Therefore, the United States should not, at least by normal standards,
conduct any military operations in Pakistan whatsoever - particularly
military operations which involve risk to the lives of Pakistani
civilians - without the permission, in advance, of the government of
Pakistan.
If this is not clear to you, substitute "Britain" or "France" or "the
Soviet Union" for Pakistan in the sentence above, and it should be
clear what some people are complaining about. How would you feel if
several Americans were killed because a Chinese robot plane tried to
attack, say, the Dalai Lama - or even Rebiya Kadeer - on a visit to
the United States?
This is not to say that the drone operations of the U. S. in Pakistan
are wrong or evil, merely that they are outside the usual norms of
international conduct. For Pakistan to be harboring terrorists who
leave its borders and kill people in Afghanistan is something to which
the United States has every right to object.
Pakistan, despite its problems, is a U. S. ally. But it isn't capable
of exerting full control over the tribal areas, and the government is
fearful of a negative public reaction that would topple it were it to
formally allow U. S. forces to enter Pakistan to assist in dealing
with al-Qaeda and Taliban forces hiding there. Operating drones in
Pakistan is a measured response to the situation which avoids
declaring war on Pakistan, invading and conquering it, when that is
not necessary.
John Savard
Charles Richmond
Did the U.S. declare war against the Taliban and Al-Queda when I
wasn't looking???
--
+----------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond |
| |
| plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com |
+----------------------------------------+
Walter Bushell
<6810a67e-350d-4035...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Operating drones in
> Pakistan is a measured response to the situation which avoids
> declaring war on Pakistan, invading and conquering it, when that is
> not necessary.
As if we could without nukes. Nukes would be a *very* bad ideal.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Quadibloc
> Did the U.S. declare war against the Taliban and Al-Queda when I
> wasn't looking???
Despite the absence of a formal declaration of war, captured prisoners
from the Taliban and al-Qaeda are considered to be "enemy combatants".
Thus, they are claimed not to have the Constitutional rights of common
criminals on the one hand, and they have precious little in the way of
Geneva Convention rights on the other, since they're fighting on
behalf of terrorist organizations, not national governments.
This status of "enemy combatant" is associated with military conflict,
and it also is connected with the fact they're being held on a
military base in Guantanamo.
One might also refer to a televised speech by then-President George W.
Bush shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, in which he
announced his intention to have the United States pursue and destroy
all terrorist groups with international operations.
John Savard
Peter Flass
Aren't they terrorists? Check out the "War on Terror."
Charles Richmond
So show me the "Declaration of War" passed by the Congress of the
United States. Otherwise, it is *not* a war... only the Congress
has the power to declare war.
Dave Garland
> Did the U.S. declare war against the Taliban and Al-Queda when I wasn't
> looking???
I think that "declaring war" against something that is not a country
is meaningless, though rabble-rousers like to use it as a rhetorical
flourish. After all, we declared war on drugs, too, so maybe when
Afghanistan is finished we can put the drones to work blowing up
people in our major cities.
Dave
Quadibloc
> So show me the "Declaration of War" passed by the Congress of the
> United States. Otherwise, it is *not* a war... only the Congress
> has the power to declare war.
How about Korea and Vietnam?
They weren't *officially* wars either, but Americans in uniform were
shooting and being shot at.
John Savard
Andrew Swallow
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> The Taliban and Al-queda. They don't get a free pass just because
>> they're in Pakistan.
>
> Did the U.S. declare war against the Taliban and Al-Queda when I wasn't
> looking???
>
Yes. On September 18, 2001 Congress passed �Authorization for Use of
Military Force�.
[url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-notes.html[/url]
[quote]
�SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
�(a) In General.�That the President is authorized to use all necessary
and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons.
[/quote]
Charles Richmond
Drones *might* be a good idea for drug interdiction. They could
meet all those private planes from Columbia... ;-)
Charles Richmond
But technically, they were *not* wars... they were "police actions".
Charles Richmond
All very interesting... but *not* a declaration of war.
William Hamblen
See Public Law 107-40.
Congress has not used the magic word war since 1941. Nevertheless,
hostilities were authorized.
Bud
Roland Hutchinson
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So show me the "Declaration of War" passed by the Congress of the
>>> United States. Otherwise, it is *not* a war... only the Congress has
>>> the power to declare war.
>>
>> How about Korea and Vietnam?
>>
>> They weren't *officially* wars either, but Americans in uniform were
>> shooting and being shot at.
>>
>>
> But technically, they were *not* wars... they were "police actions".
And techically, the one in Korea isn't over yet.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
grey...@mail.com
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:44:32 -0600, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So show me the "Declaration of War" passed by the Congress of the
>>>> United States. Otherwise, it is *not* a war... only the Congress has
>>>> the power to declare war.
>>>
>>> How about Korea and Vietnam?
>>>
>>> They weren't *officially* wars either, but Americans in uniform were
>>> shooting and being shot at.
>>>
>>>
>> But technically, they were *not* wars... they were "police actions".
>
> And techically, the one in Korea isn't over yet.
>
Probably the likeliest to get serious again.
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
Charles Richmond
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:44:32 -0600, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So show me the "Declaration of War" passed by the Congress of the
>>>> United States. Otherwise, it is *not* a war... only the Congress has
>>>> the power to declare war.
>>> How about Korea and Vietnam?
>>>
>>> They weren't *officially* wars either, but Americans in uniform were
>>> shooting and being shot at.
>>>
>>>
>> But technically, they were *not* wars... they were "police actions".
>
> And techically, the one in Korea isn't over yet.
>
And technically, I do *not* think that the U.S. ever signed a
peace treaty following World War I. The U.S. signed the Armistice
Agreement...
Charles Richmond
Well, we all know that "it ain't over till the fat lady sings".
(I believe that would be referring to Brunhilda. ;-) )
Charles Richmond
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:40 -0600, Charles Richmond
> <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Aren't they terrorists? Check out the "War on Terror."
>> So show me the "Declaration of War" passed by the Congress of the
>> United States. Otherwise, it is *not* a war... only the Congress
>> has the power to declare war.
>
> See Public Law 107-40.
>
> Congress has not used the magic word war since 1941. Nevertheless,
> hostilities were authorized.
>
Yes, yes, yes!!! Hostilities, police action, shooting, killing,
explosions, death, treachery... *no* one is denying that!!!
But it is *not* a *war* until Congress says it is!!!
Peter Grange
<fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So show me the "Declaration of War" passed by the Congress of the
>>> United States. Otherwise, it is *not* a war... only the Congress
>>> has the power to declare war.
>>
>> How about Korea and Vietnam?
>>
>> They weren't *officially* wars either, but Americans in uniform were
>> shooting and being shot at.
>>
>
>But technically, they were *not* wars... they were "police actions".
I believe the Vietnamese call their "Police Action" the "American
War".
--
Pete
Patrick Scheible
> William Hamblen wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:40 -0600, Charles Richmond
> > <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Flass wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >>>
> >>> Aren't they terrorists? Check out the "War on Terror."
> >> So show me the "Declaration of War" passed by the Congress of the
> >> United States. Otherwise, it is *not* a war... only the Congress
> >> has the power to declare war.
> >
> > See Public Law 107-40.
> >
> > Congress has not used the magic word war since 1941. Nevertheless,
> > hostilities were authorized.
> >
>
> Yes, yes, yes!!! Hostilities, police action, shooting, killing,
> explosions, death, treachery... *no* one is denying that!!!
>
Only God can make a tree, and only Congress can make a war...
-- Patrick
William Hamblen
<fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:44:32 -0600, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So show me the "Declaration of War" passed by the Congress of the
>>>>> United States. Otherwise, it is *not* a war... only the Congress has
>>>>> the power to declare war.
>>>> How about Korea and Vietnam?
>>>>
>>>> They weren't *officially* wars either, but Americans in uniform were
>>>> shooting and being shot at.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But technically, they were *not* wars... they were "police actions".
>>
>> And techically, the one in Korea isn't over yet.
>>
>
>And technically, I do *not* think that the U.S. ever signed a
>peace treaty following World War I. The U.S. signed the Armistice
>Agreement...
Wilson signed the Treaty of Versailles, but the senate did not ratify
it. After Harding became president there was a separate peace treaty
with Germany which basically was the Treaty of Versailles without the
League of Nations Covenant.
Bud
Quadibloc
> And technically, I do *not* think that the U.S. ever signed a
> peace treaty following World War I. The U.S. signed the Armistice
> Agreement...
The U.S. eventually did sign a treaty, along with the Eastern European
nations, recognizing such things as the postwar boundaries of Poland,
sometime during the 1970s, in the belief that this would promote
detente and thus give some small additional measure of freedom to the
people of Eastern Europe.
I can't remember what it was called... perhaps a web search will turn
something up.
Ah, the Helsinki agreement, signed in 1975.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > How about Korea and Vietnam?
>
> > They weren't *officially* wars either, but Americans in uniform were
> > shooting and being shot at.
>
> But technically, they were *not* wars... they were "police actions".
Yes, but since the lives of our boys in uniform are still in jeopardy,
to say that we are at war, with the implication that Americans should
exercise the same responsibility and caution in supporting their
efforts and sacrifice, and to exert themselves as well towards the
achievement of victory, is legitimate.
John Savard
Andrew Swallow
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> Peter Flass wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>> The Taliban and Al-queda. They don't get a free pass just because
>>>> they're in Pakistan.
>>>
>>> Did the U.S. declare war against the Taliban and Al-Queda when I
>>> wasn't looking???
>>>
>>
>> Yes. On September 18, 2001 Congress passed �Authorization for Use of
>> Military Force�.
>>
>> [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-notes.html[/url]
>>
>> [quote]
>> �SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
>>
>> �(a) In General.�That the President is authorized to use all necessary
>> and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
>> he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
>> attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
>> organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
>> international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
>> organizations or persons.
>> [/quote]
>
> All very interesting... but *not* a declaration of war.
>
Requiring more is hair splitting.
Andrew Swallow
Quadibloc
> It is a public declaration, has legal force and permits the fighting.
> Requiring more is hair splitting.
It depends on the purpose.
Without a formal declaration of war (Canada doesn't have one either,
and our treason laws, I think, have the same limitation your
Constitution places on that charge) Canada won't be able to try Omar
Khadr for treason.
Without a formal declaration of war, the United States can, with a
straight face, claim it wasn't flagrantly violating the U. N. Charter
when it initiated military hostilities with Afghanistan, a member of
the U. N. General Assembly, simply because it wasn't satisfied with
their offer to give Osama bin Laden an "Islamic trial".
By the standards of 19th-century Europe... or if Afghanistan had a
nuclear arsenal like that of the former Soviet Union... those left-
wing extremists who characterize the Afghan conflict as aggression by
the United States, despite the events of September 11, 2001, do have a
*point*, even if only in a... technical... sense.
Saying "oh, but this isn't really a war" gives other countries a face-
saving way to turn a blind eye to this particular question.
It avoids having to confront the fact that the basis of the
international law framework, that every country is to respect the
sovereignty of every other country, is a *practical expedient* rather
than a *natural moral imperative*. It is fundamentally wrong to invade
a country in order to enslave its citizens and steal its resources. To
stop it from abusing a minority, to reverse the overthrow of a
legitimate and good government... invading a country for those
purposes would not be wrong, *but* they can easily be claimed
dishonestly as pretexts by aggressors.
There would have to be someone around who could distinguish between
truth and lies, and who, when acknowledging as the truth statements
from democratic nations, while rejecting the lies of tyrants, would
not be credibly accused of harboring a "double standard" in doing so,
because people in general would know better than that.
John Savard
Charles Richmond
Yes, I vaguely remember hearing of it without knowing what it was
about: The Helsinki Accords:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords
Charles Richmond
But that's just it, John. IMHO I don't think that folks in the
U.S. are "inconvenienced" by the conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. At least *not* nearly to the degree that people in
the U.S. were all working to help "win the war" in WWII.
It reminds me of that original Star Trek episode where two planets
had been at war for 500 years. To preserve their infrastructure,
they had an agreement to "fight" by computer and disintegrate
those people declared "killed" by the program. That way they would
*not* suffer the destruction of their cities, and life could go on
"as if" the war didn't exist.
Charles Richmond
It is *not* intended to be "hair splitting". The U.S.
Constitution, the *highest* law in the land, gave Congress the
power to declare war. That power was given to Congress for a
reason, and the intent of the Constitution has been subverted.
That distresses me *no* end.
Andrew Swallow
Congress.
Andrew Swallow
Chris Adams
>Charles Richmond wrote:
>> It is *not* intended to be "hair splitting". The U.S. Constitution, the
>> *highest* law in the land, gave Congress the power to declare war. That
>> power was given to Congress for a reason, and the intent of the
>> Constitution has been subverted. That distresses me *no* end.
>>
>Now you are talking nonsense. The Authorisation I quoted was issued by
>Congress.
Basically, the Congress abdicated their power and handed it off to the
President, which is not allowed under the Constitution. Congress didn't
declare war; they told the President he could do what he wanted.
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
D.J.
wrote:
>Once upon a time, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> said:
>>Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> It is *not* intended to be "hair splitting". The U.S. Constitution, the
>>> *highest* law in the land, gave Congress the power to declare war. That
>>> power was given to Congress for a reason, and the intent of the
>>> Constitution has been subverted. That distresses me *no* end.
>>>
>>Now you are talking nonsense. The Authorisation I quoted was issued by
>>Congress.
>
>Basically, the Congress abdicated their power and handed it off to the
>President, which is not allowed under the Constitution. Congress didn't
>declare war; they told the President he could do what he wanted.
No, they gave him permission. They still have oversight.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
grey...@mail.com
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 1:38 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And technically, I do *not* think that the U.S. ever signed a
>>> peace treaty following World War I. The U.S. signed the Armistice
>>> Agreement...
>>
>> The U.S. eventually did sign a treaty, along with the Eastern European
>> nations, recognizing such things as the postwar boundaries of Poland,
>> sometime during the 1970s, in the belief that this would promote
>> detente and thus give some small additional measure of freedom to the
>> people of Eastern Europe.
>>
>> I can't remember what it was called... perhaps a web search will turn
>> something up.
>>
>> Ah, the Helsinki agreement, signed in 1975.
>>
>
> Yes, I vaguely remember hearing of it without knowing what it was
> about: The Helsinki Accords:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords
>
>
According to what I remember, German unity was accompanied by a
promise by the German government to recognize the present
Polish-German border, and the present Lisbon treaty (in the EU) was
held up by the Czech republic until their country was allowed to
dissassociate from some of the clauses that would have allowed the
Sudeten Germans recover the lands they lost at the end of the war.
One of the Richest people in Germany is a Sudeten German. The whole
situation is a house of cards, kept intact by the realization that it
is better to allow the present de-facto situation to continue, rather
than change it in any way, which is why the present status of Kosovo
is dangerous.
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
Dave Garland
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:45:55 -0600, cma...@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams)
> wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> said:
>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> It is *not* intended to be "hair splitting". The U.S. Constitution, the
>>>> *highest* law in the land, gave Congress the power to declare war. That
>>>> power was given to Congress for a reason, and the intent of the
>>>> Constitution has been subverted. That distresses me *no* end.
>>>>
>>> Now you are talking nonsense. The Authorisation I quoted was issued by
>>> Congress.
>> Basically, the Congress abdicated their power and handed it off to the
>> President, which is not allowed under the Constitution. Congress didn't
>> declare war; they told the President he could do what he wanted.
>
> No, they gave him permission. They still have oversight.
So, does the "war on drugs" constitute a state of war, or just hot
air? Are we in a war when we take out a Somali pirate? Of course
not. How precisely do you distinguish between that and attacking
Iraq? Between Iraq and 1941 Japan? All of these things had
Congressional approval, but only the last had a declaration of war.
If we are legally in a state of war, then presumably that makes
targets in the continental US legitimate military targets for the
enemy. Does it?
According to US law, we are not at war. According to international
law, I have no idea.. I still think war requires nation-states as
adversaries, and I'm not sure how military occupations (such as
Afghanistan and Iraq) are counted.
Dave
Charles Richmond
It is *not* nonsense!!! The Authorization by Congress was still
*not* a declaration of war. Put in the *right* words and I will be
content. Congress will *not* use those words, because the
implications are very different.
Charles Richmond
> D.J. wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:45:55 -0600, cma...@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams)
>> wrote:
>>> Once upon a time, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> said:
>>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>> It is *not* intended to be "hair splitting". The U.S. Constitution, the
>>>>> *highest* law in the land, gave Congress the power to declare war. That
>>>>> power was given to Congress for a reason, and the intent of the
>>>>> Constitution has been subverted. That distresses me *no* end.
>>>>>
>>>> Now you are talking nonsense. The Authorisation I quoted was issued by
>>>> Congress.
>>> Basically, the Congress abdicated their power and handed it off to the
>>> President, which is not allowed under the Constitution. Congress didn't
>>> declare war; they told the President he could do what he wanted.
>> No, they gave him permission. They still have oversight.
>
> So, does the "war on drugs" constitute a state of war, or just hot
> air? Are we in a war when we take out a Somali pirate? Of course
> not. How precisely do you distinguish between that and attacking
> Iraq? Between Iraq and 1941 Japan? All of these things had
> Congressional approval, but only the last had a declaration of war.
The "war on drugs" is a metaphor. It is *not* a real war, but the
terminology "war on drugs" is meant to signify an all-out effort
to get rid of the drug problem.
It does *not* require a war for naval forces to interdict a pirate
ship. To attack the Somali mainland *should* require a declaration
of war... and probably is what should be done by a coalition of
several countries.
I guess that I would differentiate (and I think there is a law
passed by Congress that makes this differentiation) between a war
and a military action by the length of time that they last. Any
conflict lasting over 90 days should *require* a declaration of
war. Otherwise, the military should *not* be involved long term.
I think all of us here can concur that a member of the U.S.
Congress has the *right* (for good or ill) to vote in whatever way
their intelligence and conscience directs them. Neither you nor I
can force a member of Congress to vote in any certain way. It's up
to the member of Congress how he or she votes.
When the U.S. Congress voted in the Declaration of War against
Japan in 1941, only *one* member of Congress voted against that
declaration. That was Jeanette Rankin, Congresswoman from Montana.
Folks got this news, and Rankin had to be escorted from the
capitol building by armed police to keep the crowds from killing
her! When the passions of the public are enflamed, the
Constitution seems to go out the window, very unfortunately. In
crisis situations is when our rights as citizens *most* need to be
protected. The same situation happened after 9/11 and during WWII
with the incarceration of Japanese/Americans (and the confiscation
of their property).
> If we are legally in a state of war, then presumably that makes
> targets in the continental US legitimate military targets for the
> enemy. Does it?
A peculiar thing about a real war: When our side strikes out
against an enemy target, certainly our actions are justified. When
the enemy strikes out at us, it is an atrocity!!! How dare those
heathens!!!
It's like when the German battleship Bismark sank the heavy
cruiser Hood in WWII. Out of the 1400 men on the Hood, only three
survived. The Hood did *not* have heavy enough deck armor, and a
lucky shot from the Bismark went right into the magazine where all
the explosives are stored.
Oh, the British were indignant and vowed to take revenge on the
Bismark for this dastardly deed. As if sinking the Hood was
somehow *not* a fair result of wartime. Someone should have
pointed out to them that in war, men die... and whoever the
"enemy" is, they are going to do their best to destroy you.
> According to US law, we are not at war. According to international
> law, I have no idea.. I still think war requires nation-states as
> adversaries, and I'm not sure how military occupations (such as
> Afghanistan and Iraq) are counted.
>
> Dave
Patrick Scheible
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 11:44 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >>> How about Korea and Vietnam?
> >>> They weren't *officially* wars either, but Americans in uniform were
> >>> shooting and being shot at.
> >> But technically, they were *not* wars... they were "police actions".
> >
> > Yes, but since the lives of our boys in uniform are still in jeopardy,
> > to say that we are at war, with the implication that Americans should
> > exercise the same responsibility and caution in supporting their
> > efforts and sacrifice, and to exert themselves as well towards the
> > achievement of victory, is legitimate.
> >
>
> But that's just it, John. IMHO I don't think that folks in the
> U.S. are "inconvenienced" by the conflicts in Iraq and
> Afghanistan. At least *not* nearly to the degree that people in
> the U.S. were all working to help "win the war" in WWII.
This is true. In WW II, everyone was affected. If they didn't have
family members in the armed forces, they had family members doing
defence jobs. And everybody had food rationing, extremely limited
gasoline, higher taxes, shortages.
G.H.W. Bush's response to the 1991 Gulf War was telling everyone to go
shopping.
Those people not in the military or mercenaries would hardly know
there was a war.
> It reminds me of that original Star Trek episode where two planets
> had been at war for 500 years. To preserve their infrastructure,
> they had an agreement to "fight" by computer and disintegrate
> those people declared "killed" by the program. That way they would
> *not* suffer the destruction of their cities, and life could go on
> "as if" the war didn't exist.
I was just thinking about that episode the other day. Kirk put a stop
to it. (Prime directive? What prime directive?)
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
> Oh, the British were indignant and vowed to take revenge on the
> Bismark for this dastardly deed. As if sinking the Hood was
> somehow *not* a fair result of wartime. Someone should have
> pointed out to them that in war, men die... and whoever the
> "enemy" is, they are going to do their best to destroy you.
Revenge? I thought the British particularly wanted the Hood because
she was fast and powerful enough to seriously distrupt the convoys,
even more than the submarines.
-- Patrick
Peter Flass
> D.J. wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:45:55 -0600, cma...@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams)
>> wrote:
>>> Once upon a time, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> said:
>>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>> It is *not* intended to be "hair splitting". The U.S. Constitution, the
>>>>> *highest* law in the land, gave Congress the power to declare war. That
>>>>> power was given to Congress for a reason, and the intent of the
>>>>> Constitution has been subverted. That distresses me *no* end.
>>>>>
>>>> Now you are talking nonsense. The Authorisation I quoted was issued by
>>>> Congress.
>>> Basically, the Congress abdicated their power and handed it off to the
>>> President, which is not allowed under the Constitution. Congress didn't
>>> declare war; they told the President he could do what he wanted.
>> No, they gave him permission. They still have oversight.
>
> So, does the "war on drugs" constitute a state of war, or just hot
> air? Are we in a war when we take out a Somali pirate? Of course
> not.
We ought to be. A little carpet-bombing of the coastal towns would
eliminate the piracy in a hurry. We went to war to eliminate the
Barbary Pirates. The present situation is just silly.
D.J.
wrote:
>Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> writes:
>> It reminds me of that original Star Trek episode where two planets
>> had been at war for 500 years. To preserve their infrastructure,
>> they had an agreement to "fight" by computer and disintegrate
>> those people declared "killed" by the program. That way they would
>> *not* suffer the destruction of their cities, and life could go on
>> "as if" the war didn't exist.
>
>I was just thinking about that episode the other day. Kirk put a stop
>to it. (Prime directive? What prime directive?)
Kirk learned to manipulate the Prime Directive.
D.J.
<dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>So, does the "war on drugs" constitute a state of war, or just hot
The 'war on drugs' is an oxymoron. There are cerainly some actions
taking place, but they don't seem to have much affect on the amount of
illegal drugs being imported.
D.J.
wrote:
Pocket battleship. Top deck armor sacrificed for speed. Like they
never heard of plunging naval gunfire.
The possibility, mentioned in a documentary I saw several years ago,
is that the same type of brittle steel was used in both the Hood and
the Titanic.
As for revenge, every Navy wants to revenge the sinking of one of
their Navy ships sunk by an enemy.
D.J.
<fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Taliban and Al-queda. They don't get a free pass just
>>>>>>>> because they're in Pakistan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did the U.S. declare war against the Taliban and Al-Queda when I
>>>>>>> wasn't looking???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of Military Force�.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-notes.html[/url]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [quote]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> �(a) In General.�That the President is authorized to use all
>>>>>> organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
>>>>>> committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
>>>>>> September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in
>>>>>> order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against
>>>>>> the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
>>>>>> [/quote]
>>>>>
>>>>> All very interesting... but *not* a declaration of war.
>>>>>
>>>> It is a public declaration, has legal force and permits the fighting.
>>>> Requiring more is hair splitting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is *not* intended to be "hair splitting". The U.S. Constitution,
>>> the *highest* law in the land, gave Congress the power to declare war.
>>> That power was given to Congress for a reason, and the intent of the
>>> Constitution has been subverted. That distresses me *no* end.
>>>
>> Now you are talking nonsense. The Authorisation I quoted was issued by
>> Congress.
>>
>
>It is *not* nonsense!!! The Authorization by Congress was still
>*not* a declaration of war. Put in the *right* words and I will be
>content. Congress will *not* use those words, because the
>implications are very different.
With the Authorization Congress has oversight. With a declaration of
War, Congress has much less oversight. It was a way of controlling
what went on.
And the Authorization is legal.
Patrick Scheible
Ah, sadly, the world might look at our carpet-bombing whole towns
because of a few pirates as just a little bit of an overreaction.
Like destroying an occupied office building because you don't like
some of the policies of the country it's in.
It seems like we ought to be able to hit the pirates' boats with
missiles or air attack. Clearly I'm missing something, or it would
have been done already.
-- Patrick
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> It does *not* require a war for naval forces to interdict a pirate
> ship. To attack the Somali mainland *should* require a declaration
> of war... and probably is what should be done by a coalition of
> several countries.
Including some Islamic countries. Maybe we could get Hamas to send a
token force.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
> A peculiar thing about a real war: When our side strikes out
> against an enemy target, certainly our actions are justified. When
> the enemy strikes out at us, it is an atrocity!!! How dare those
> heathens!!!
O yeah. When its *your* parent or child that's blown to pieces, it's
very difficult to accept that it is just collateral damage.
Walter Bushell
> Oh, the British were indignant and vowed to take revenge on the
> Bismark for this dastardly deed. As if sinking the Hood was
> somehow *not* a fair result of wartime. Someone should have
> pointed out to them that in war, men die... and whoever the
> "enemy" is, they are going to do their best to destroy you.
Most people are solipsists[1] and extend recognition of humanity to
those closest to themselves.
[1] It's our first philosophy and never completely abandoned.
Walter Bushell
D.J. <jollyc...@cableone.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:42:48 -0600, Dave Garland
> <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> >So, does the "war on drugs" constitute a state of war, or just hot
>
> The 'war on drugs' is an oxymoron. There are cerainly some actions
> taking place, but they don't seem to have much affect on the amount of
> illegal drugs being imported.
>
> JimP.
They keep prices and profits high and keep the donations to politicians
coming. Also the law enforcement agencies get to confiscate all sorts of
nice property and toys. Oh, yeah it gives jobs to prison guards, who
really don't want the sentences for drugs reduced because there goes not
only their job, but their town in many cases. There are prisons in
upstate New York where the prison is the base employer that makes the
town go. (Everyone else services the prison employees and each other.)
Also, if we let the drug prisoners go, imagine the impact on the
unemployment rate.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> So, does the "war on drugs" constitute a state of war, or just hot
> air? Are we in a war when we take out a Somali pirate? Of course
> not. How precisely do you distinguish between that and attacking
> Iraq? Between Iraq and 1941 Japan? All of these things had
> Congressional approval, but only the last had a declaration of war.
china's countermeasure to get their people off drugs that had been
forced on them by the british ... just said anybody caught with drugs
would be beheaded. Supposedly it cured the problem within two yrs
... with significantly less human death and misery than goes with the
drug program in this country.
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
William Hamblen
wrote:
>On 09 Nov 2009 09:15:32 -0800, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
>wrote:
>>Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>> Oh, the British were indignant and vowed to take revenge on the
>>> Bismark for this dastardly deed. As if sinking the Hood was
>>> somehow *not* a fair result of wartime. Someone should have
>>> pointed out to them that in war, men die... and whoever the
>>> "enemy" is, they are going to do their best to destroy you.
>>
>>Revenge? I thought the British particularly wanted the Hood because
>>she was fast and powerful enough to seriously distrupt the convoys,
>>even more than the submarines.
>
>Pocket battleship. Top deck armor sacrificed for speed. Like they
>never heard of plunging naval gunfire.
>
>The possibility, mentioned in a documentary I saw several years ago,
>is that the same type of brittle steel was used in both the Hood and
>the Titanic.
>
>As for revenge, every Navy wants to revenge the sinking of one of
>their Navy ships sunk by an enemy.
The Hood was 20 years out of date in 1941 and in bad condition. The
British did not have the cash to rebuild all of their old capital
ships in the '20s and '30s. The Hood would have gone into the
shipyard in 1940 or '41 if the war hadn't begun in 1939.
Bud
Dave Garland
> It seems like we ought to be able to hit the pirates' boats with
> missiles or air attack. Clearly I'm missing something, or it would
> have been done already.
What I don't understand is why no country has cobbled up a few Q-ships
(like the German "Atlantis" during WWII). Just a freighter until the
first shots are fired, then it turns out that the cargo stacked on
deck is actually camouflage for gun emplacements and the pirate boats
are suddenly clouds of splinters. And it sails away, and a week later
it has a different paint job and an extra fake funnel and it traverses
the area again.
Dave
Charles Richmond
ISTM that the Hood was considered the best warship that the
British had. Unfortunately it had that "Achilles heel" of *not*
enough deck plating armor to protect its magazine.
Charles Richmond
> In article <hd9fmh$ohp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> A peculiar thing about a real war: When our side strikes out
>> against an enemy target, certainly our actions are justified. When
>> the enemy strikes out at us, it is an atrocity!!! How dare those
>> heathens!!!
>
> O yeah. When its *your* parent or child that's blown to pieces, it's
> very difficult to accept that it is just collateral damage.
>
When soldiers and sailors die in war, it is *not* collateral
damage. One of the main points of a war is to kill the enemy's
sailors and soldiers. When civilians are killed, *that* is
collateral damage.
Charles Richmond
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:57:53 -0600, Charles Richmond
> <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Taliban and Al-queda. They don't get a free pass just
>>>>>>>>> because they're in Pakistan.
>>>>>>>> Did the U.S. declare war against the Taliban and Al-Queda when I
>>>>>>>> wasn't looking???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of Military Force�.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-notes.html[/url]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [quote]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> �(a) In General.�That the President is authorized to use all
>>>>>>> organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
>>>>>>> committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
>>>>>>> September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in
>>>>>>> order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against
>>>>>>> the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
>>>>>>> [/quote]
>>>>>> All very interesting... but *not* a declaration of war.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is a public declaration, has legal force and permits the fighting.
>>>>> Requiring more is hair splitting.
>>>>>
>>>> It is *not* intended to be "hair splitting". The U.S. Constitution,
>>>> the *highest* law in the land, gave Congress the power to declare war.
>>>> That power was given to Congress for a reason, and the intent of the
>>>> Constitution has been subverted. That distresses me *no* end.
>>>>
>>> Now you are talking nonsense. The Authorisation I quoted was issued by
>>> Congress.
>>>
>> It is *not* nonsense!!! The Authorization by Congress was still
>> *not* a declaration of war. Put in the *right* words and I will be
>> content. Congress will *not* use those words, because the
>> implications are very different.
>
> With the Authorization Congress has oversight. With a declaration of
> War, Congress has much less oversight. It was a way of controlling
> what went on.
>
> And the Authorization is legal.
>
But it's *not* a war.
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <hd9fmh$ohp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> A peculiar thing about a real war: When our side strikes out
> >> against an enemy target, certainly our actions are justified. When
> >> the enemy strikes out at us, it is an atrocity!!! How dare those
> >> heathens!!!
> >
> > O yeah. When its *your* parent or child that's blown to pieces, it's
> > very difficult to accept that it is just collateral damage.
> >
>
> When soldiers and sailors die in war, it is *not* collateral
> damage. One of the main points of a war is to kill the enemy's
> sailors and soldiers. When civilians are killed, *that* is
> collateral damage.
Well yes, we did a *lot* of collateral damage in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Patrick Scheible
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
> > Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> writes:
> >
> >> Oh, the British were indignant and vowed to take revenge on the
> >> Bismark for this dastardly deed. As if sinking the Hood was
> >> somehow *not* a fair result of wartime. Someone should have
> >> pointed out to them that in war, men die... and whoever the
> >> "enemy" is, they are going to do their best to destroy you.
> >
> > Revenge? I thought the British particularly wanted the Hood because
> > she was fast and powerful enough to seriously distrupt the convoys,
> > even more than the submarines.
> >
>
> ISTM that the Hood was considered the best warship that the
> British had. Unfortunately it had that "Achilles heel" of *not*
> enough deck plating armor to protect its magazine.
Between the wars she was the biggest warship in the world, and she was
often showing the flag and in the news. But in naval circles
(including the German) it was well-known how vulnerable she was, as
well as in need of a refit. However it was still a shock that she
was destroyed so quickly.
-- Patrick
D.J.
Shocking even to the Germans on the Kriegsmarine ships firing at the
Hood. History channel has a documentary where they interview people
from both navies.
Quadibloc
> The whole
> situation is a house of cards, kept intact by the realization that it
> is better to allow the present de-facto situation to continue, rather
> than change it in any way, which is why the present status of Kosovo
> is dangerous.
What would be dangerous would be returning Kosovo to Serbian control,
because the Serbs have proven they can elect a government that fails
to respect the rights of the ethnic Albanians who live there.
Poland's *eastern* frontier should be returned to its pre-war state...
which should eventually allow for the question of the western frontier
to be examined, and, for that matter, Medvedev and Putin ought to be
sent to Georgia for trial... and subsequent execution.
The only thing that makes this "dangerous" is that evil men are still
in possession of nuclear weapons. Sadly, the opportunity created by
the fall of Communism was never seized, and so instead of Russia being
made a permanently peaceful nation, like Germany or Japan, things were
left in a situation that has allowed the forces of evil to creep back
into power in that country.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> writes:
> > It reminds me of that original Star Trek episode where two planets
> > had been at war for 500 years. To preserve their infrastructure,
> > they had an agreement to "fight" by computer and disintegrate
> > those people declared "killed" by the program. That way they would
> > *not* suffer the destruction of their cities, and life could go on
> > "as if" the war didn't exist.
>
> I was just thinking about that episode the other day. Kirk put a stop
> to it. (Prime directive? What prime directive?)
It appears to have been based - without credit - on Herman Wouk's
antiwar novel "The Lomokome Papers".
John Savard
Quadibloc
> A peculiar thing about a real war: When our side strikes out
> against an enemy target, certainly our actions are justified. When
> the enemy strikes out at us, it is an atrocity!!! How dare those
> heathens!!!
>
> It's like when the German battleship Bismark sank the heavy
> cruiser Hood in WWII. Out of the 1400 men on the Hood, only three
> survived. The Hood did *not* have heavy enough deck armor, and a
> lucky shot from the Bismark went right into the magazine where all
> the explosives are stored.
>
> Oh, the British were indignant and vowed to take revenge on the
> Bismark for this dastardly deed. As if sinking the Hood was
> somehow *not* a fair result of wartime. Someone should have
> pointed out to them that in war, men die... and whoever the
> "enemy" is, they are going to do their best to destroy you.
There's nothing hypocritical, inconsistent, or unfair about this at
all.
Police officers are upstanding citizens who protect the rest of us
from criminals, and so the public is outraged when one of them is
murdered by a drug dealer, for example.
This sense of outrage is justified.
And when our soldiers, defending the right of people to be free, not
to have their land stolen by aggressors, are killed by someone
fighting on behalf of slavery, on behalf of aggression, outrage is
justified for the same reason.
Our enemy happens to be the aggressor who started the war. DUH,.
John Savard
grey...@mail.com
There was a story that the Russians had a cruise ship, that one could
join, bring ones own guns'n'ammo, and be allowed to help shoot up the
Somali pirates when they attacked, sadly, turned out to be spurious.
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
grey...@mail.com
> Dave Garland wrote:
>
> We ought to be. A little carpet-bombing of the coastal towns would
> eliminate the piracy in a hurry. We went to war to eliminate the
> Barbary Pirates. The present situation is just silly.
probably kill a lot of innocent people, which, as has ben noted many
times, does not make one popular. The present problem, AFAIread, was
caused by overfishing of Somali national waters by foreign vessels,
which again, was caused by the Somalis having no international
representation. I would think that those who have resorted to piracy
will have to be dealt with, they would be like any person who
discovers that its easier to rob banks than work in an ordinary job.
As far as I read, Somalis are divided into several areas, the French
colony of Dijbouti, What was roughly the old British Somaliland,
which is seeking to get international recognition as an independent
country (they arrested a Chinese person on a round-the-world trip,
trying to get China to recognize them), tribal areas ruled as always
by tribal chiefs, and Mogadishu, which the Ethiopians occupied on US
urgings. There is also the Somali people in the Eastern Ogaden, which
have been ruled by the AddisAbaba government. Very confusing
situation.
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
Peter Flass
Yes, you're missing the stupid "political correctness." The pirates,
when caught, are taken prisoner and sent to somewhere in Africa for
trial - Kenya maybe?
Understandably, most of the shipowners (with some exceptions) don't want
to arm their crews. It's safer for them to just pay the ransom.
Unfortunately this leaves a few ships of various navies patrolling a lot
of ocean looking for guys in small boats.
When they're caught we should sink their boats and release them to swim
home.
jmfbahciv
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <hd9fmh$ohp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A peculiar thing about a real war: When our side strikes out against
>>> an enemy target, certainly our actions are justified. When the enemy
>>> strikes out at us, it is an atrocity!!! How dare those heathens!!!
>>
>> O yeah. When its *your* parent or child that's blown to pieces, it's
>> very difficult to accept that it is just collateral damage.
>>
>
> When soldiers and sailors die in war, it is *not* collateral damage. One
> of the main points of a war is to kill
Nitpik. Wound.
>the enemy's sailors and soldiers.
> When civilians are killed, *that* is collateral damage.
>
/BAH
grey...@mail.com
> On Nov 9, 4:49 am, greyma...@mail.com wrote:
>
> What would be dangerous would be returning Kosovo to Serbian control,
> because the Serbs have proven they can elect a government that fails
> to respect the rights of the ethnic Albanians who live there.
If it was to be easy, t'wouldn't be a problem. As (I think it was the
name, Bruno Bettelheim?), wrote of the SS, "Men drive mad by
fantasy". The present situation is hard on the remaining Serbs in
Kossovo. Some sort of human-rights guarentee for both communities
would be an answer.
>
> Poland's *eastern* frontier should be returned to its pre-war state...
> which should eventually allow for the question of the western frontier
> to be examined,
No, non, no. We have a de-facto situation that sorta works, any
change in that would result in a mass of recrimination that would
never be finished, and cause endless bitterness. Stalin imposed the
present situation by brute force, no modern civilized country would
attempt anything like that.
> and, for that matter, Medvedev and Putin ought to be
> sent to Georgia for trial... and subsequent execution.
Why? Independent UN investigation blames Georgia for attacking first.
>
> The only thing that makes this "dangerous" is that evil men are still
> in possession of nuclear weapons.
Yess?
> Sadly, the opportunity created by
> the fall of Communism was never seized, and so instead of Russia being
> made a permanently peaceful nation, like Germany
Germany is involved in the present mess in Afganistan.
> or Japan, things were
> left in a situation that has allowed the forces of evil to creep back
> into power in that country.
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
Dave Garland
> When soldiers and sailors die in war, it is *not* collateral damage. One
> of the main points of a war is to kill the enemy's sailors and soldiers.
> When civilians are killed, *that* is collateral damage.
If you blow up a tank and accidently kill the people in the house it's
next to, that's collateral damage. If you drop a bomb on a wedding
party, there's nothing "collateral" about it, that's an atrocity.
Dave
Dave Garland
> This sense of outrage is justified.
>
> And when our soldiers, defending the right of people to be free, not
> to have their land stolen by aggressors,
John, in Iraq *we* are the aggressor. We attacked them, they didn't
attack us. We occupied their land (I'm not sure if that qualifies as
"stole", except in those places where the army expropriated land to
build facilities on). And women (that would be half the population,
right?) seem to be considerably less free now than they were before.
Not to speak of the people who have had to flee their homes and jobs
because of ethnic violence, and still can't return.
are killed by someone
> fighting on behalf of slavery, on behalf of aggression, outrage is
> justified for the same reason.
>
> Our enemy happens to be the aggressor who started the war. DUH,.
Only a few dupes and propagandists think that Iraq had anything to do
with 911.
Al-Q started the putative war with Afghanistan. Not the Taliban, who
were, to be sure, neither nice nor competent, though the current
puppet government just might be even less competent and more corrupt.
(Remember, when the Taliban initially came Afghans welcomed them
because they thought the Taliban would be an improvement over the
warlords.) And the Afghans have a very long history of fighting
foreign invaders. That would be us, though I'm not particularly
questioning the invasion. But we haven't made much progress in 8
years (granted, 8 years of exceedingly incompetent management by the
Bushies), what makes anyone think another 8, or 20, or 100, years is
going to work any better?
Dave
Dave Garland
> On 2009-11-09, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>
>> We ought to be. A little carpet-bombing of the coastal towns would
>> eliminate the piracy in a hurry. We went to war to eliminate the
>> Barbary Pirates. The present situation is just silly.
Um.. just to set the attributions straight, it was Peter what wrote
that. Intentionally killing civilians isn't my cup of tea.
Dave
Charles Richmond
On the History Channel, some of the German sailors from the
Bismark were interviewed. Some of those German sailors said that
*they* were surprised when the Hood sank so quickly. Those sailors
were afraid that the Hood was going to destroy *them*.
Charles Richmond
It's funny that you should mention Vladimir Putin... :-)
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> Yes, you're missing the stupid "political correctness." The pirates,
> when caught, are taken prisoner and sent to somewhere in Africa for
> trial - Kenya maybe?
>
Yes, they are taken to Mombasa, Kenya's port on the Indian Ocean.
> Understandably, most of the shipowners (with some exceptions) don't want
> to arm their crews. It's safer for them to just pay the ransom.
> Unfortunately this leaves a few ships of various navies patrolling a lot
> of ocean looking for guys in small boats.
>
But paying the ransoms is exacerbating the problem. It might even
be considered "aiding and abetting" the pirates.
> When they're caught we should sink their boats and release them to swim
> home.
And then have snipers pick them off as they swim home. :-)
Otherwise, the pirates will just get another boat and come after
you again.
Patrick Scheible
I should look for that. The history of it I've read was too recent to
include the German point of view.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
> On Nov 9, 4:49=A0am, greyma...@mail.com wrote:
> > The whole
> > situation is a house of cards, kept intact by the realization that it
> > is better to allow the present de-facto situation to continue, rather
> > than change it in any way, which is why the present status of Kosovo
> > is dangerous.
>
> What would be dangerous would be returning Kosovo to Serbian control,
> because the Serbs have proven they can elect a government that fails
> to respect the rights of the ethnic Albanians who live there.
>
> Poland's *eastern* frontier should be returned to its pre-war state...
Which pre-war state is that? I don't think it's ever stayed the same
for a hundred years running...
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
> On Nov 9, 9:56=A0am, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> > Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> writes:
>
> > > It reminds me of that original Star Trek episode where two planets
> > > had been at war for 500 years. To preserve their infrastructure,
> > > they had an agreement to "fight" by computer and disintegrate
> > > those people declared "killed" by the program. That way they would
> > > *not* suffer the destruction of their cities, and life could go on
> > > =A0 "as if" the war didn't exist.
> >
> > I was just thinking about that episode the other day. =A0Kirk put a stop
> > to it. =A0(Prime directive? What prime directive?)
>
> It appears to have been based - without credit - on Herman Wouk's
> antiwar novel "The Lomokome Papers".
I'll look for that. But it seems possible the writers were reacting
to the ICBM era of war, in which the fighters no longer had to see the
people they were fighting, even at a distance.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
It's probably faster and definitely cheaper than giving them a trial
and putting them in prison in the states.
> Understandably, most of the shipowners (with some exceptions) don't want
> to arm their crews. It's safer for them to just pay the ransom.
> Unfortunately this leaves a few ships of various navies patrolling a lot
> of ocean looking for guys in small boats.
Well, if it's not a problem for the shipowners or their crews, why
should it be a problem for us? Especially if the ship isn't
U.S. flagged and the crew isn't American. But if they want naval
protection, they should accept monitoring and/or weapons to make it
easier to catch and destroy the pirates.
> When they're caught we should sink their boats and release them to swim
> home.
Creative methods of capital punishment aren't my thing. Locking them
up in prison should be enough.
-- Patrick
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> But paying the ransoms is exacerbating the problem. It might even
> be considered "aiding and abetting" the pirates.
But the shipowners are rich and powerful people, hence they are not
subject to the laws about aiding and abetting terrorists.
Walter Bushell
> Peter Flass wrote:
> >
> > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >
> > Yes, you're missing the stupid "political correctness." The pirates,
> > when caught, are taken prisoner and sent to somewhere in Africa for
> > trial - Kenya maybe?
> >
>
> Yes, they are taken to Mombasa, Kenya's port on the Indian Ocean.
>
> > Understandably, most of the shipowners (with some exceptions) don't want
> > to arm their crews. It's safer for them to just pay the ransom.
> > Unfortunately this leaves a few ships of various navies patrolling a lot
> > of ocean looking for guys in small boats.
> >
>
> But paying the ransoms is exacerbating the problem. It might even
> be considered "aiding and abetting" the pirates.
>
> > When they're caught we should sink their boats and release them to swim
> > home.
>
> And then have snipers pick them off as they swim home. :-)
> Otherwise, the pirates will just get another boat and come after
> you again.
You just have to hit one, blood in the water will call sharks. I think
most of these incidents happen so far from land that shooting them would
be an act of mercy.
grey...@mail.com
True. The pre-1939 border is that established after the
Russian-Polish war (after WWI) drawn to Polands favour as they were
winning as that struggle finished. The present border is roughly the
`Curzon' line, drawn after Versailles with a Polish majority to the
West, Ukrainian (and Byellorussian) majority to the east. The
Russians moved the minorities of each community to `their' side of
the border 1945-48, with great brutality. Millions died, which was
never a problem with Stalin. (Many of the Poles were moved to the
areas the the Germans had been forced out of).
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
grey...@mail.com
One could go back to older punishments, such as hanging them in
chains in London Docks, or tying them to posts there for the tide to
drown. Even further back, impale them on posts on Islands in the
area, as the Normans did.
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
Peter Flass
> Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> Yes, you're missing the stupid "political correctness." The pirates,
>> when caught, are taken prisoner and sent to somewhere in Africa for
>> trial - Kenya maybe?
>>
>
> Yes, they are taken to Mombasa, Kenya's port on the Indian Ocean.
>
>> Understandably, most of the shipowners (with some exceptions) don't
>> want to arm their crews. It's safer for them to just pay the ransom.
>> Unfortunately this leaves a few ships of various navies patrolling a
>> lot of ocean looking for guys in small boats.
>>
>
> But paying the ransoms is exacerbating the problem. It might even be
> considered "aiding and abetting" the pirates.
>
>> When they're caught we should sink their boats and release them to
>> swim home.
>
> And then have snipers pick them off as they swim home. :-) Otherwise,
> the pirates will just get another boat and come after you again.
>
>
It's a *long* swim. I agree about the ransom payments. Looked at from
the POV of each individual shipowner it makes sense, and can be
considered just a cost of doing business. After all, they don't want
pirates with RPGs and AKs shooting at their ships and people, someone
might get hurt. It's only when you look at the complete situation that
ransom payments hurt. I was glad when the SEALs freed that one captain,
but it was a very risky move and hard to carry off.
Patrick Scheible
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> > Peter Flass wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >>
> >> Yes, you're missing the stupid "political correctness." The pirates,
> >> when caught, are taken prisoner and sent to somewhere in Africa for
> >> trial - Kenya maybe?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, they are taken to Mombasa, Kenya's port on the Indian Ocean.
> >
> >> Understandably, most of the shipowners (with some exceptions) don't
> >> want to arm their crews. It's safer for them to just pay the ransom.
> >> Unfortunately this leaves a few ships of various navies patrolling a
> >> lot of ocean looking for guys in small boats.
> >>
> >
> > But paying the ransoms is exacerbating the problem. It might even be
> > considered "aiding and abetting" the pirates.
> >
> >> When they're caught we should sink their boats and release them to
> >> swim home.
> >
> > And then have snipers pick them off as they swim home. :-) Otherwise,
> > the pirates will just get another boat and come after you again.
> >
> >
>
> It's a *long* swim. I agree about the ransom payments. Looked at from
> the POV of each individual shipowner it makes sense, and can be
> considered just a cost of doing business. After all, they don't want
> pirates with RPGs and AKs shooting at their ships and people, someone
> might get hurt.
Or even worse, from the shipowner's point of view, they might sink the
ship.
-- Patrick
D.J.
wrote:
>D.J. <jollyc...@cableone.net> writes:
>> Shocking even to the Germans on the Kriegsmarine ships firing at the
>> Hood. History channel has a documentary where they interview people
>> from both navies.
>
>I should look for that. The history of it I've read was too recent to
>include the German point of view.
The documentary is about the Hood, with surviving Bismark officers and
crew being interviewed for the documentary. Along with one of the 3
survivors of the Hood being interviewed as well.
As Charles points out, the Germans felt they probably wouldn't win the
battle and were shocked the Hood sank so fast.
Charles Richmond
> On 10 Nov 2009 09:21:38 -0800, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
> wrote:
>> D.J. <jollyc...@cableone.net> writes:
>>> Shocking even to the Germans on the Kriegsmarine ships firing at the
>>> Hood. History channel has a documentary where they interview people
>>> from both navies.
>> I should look for that. The history of it I've read was too recent to
>> include the German point of view.
>
> The documentary is about the Hood, with surviving Bismark officers and
> crew being interviewed for the documentary. Along with one of the 3
> survivors of the Hood being interviewed as well.
>
> As Charles points out, the Germans felt they probably wouldn't win the
> battle and were shocked the Hood sank so fast.
>
One of the programs I saw was the search for the Bismark's
shipwreck. It had some history thrown in amongst the footage of
the current search and pictures of what the Bismark looks like
today. It was produced by National Geographic, and the same guy
was looking for the Bismark who found the Titanic before.
Charles Richmond
Maybe the Poles should put the border fences on *castors* so that
the fence can be moved back and forth more easily... ;-)
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>
> > Poland's *eastern* frontier should be returned to its pre-war state...
>
> Which pre-war state is that? I don't think it's ever stayed the same
> for a hundred years running...
This in a nutshell is why the Europe really needs to be absorbed
into the EU as a single huge nation, then we can all stop squabbling about
the borders.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/