Pre-emptive strike against North Korea?
ArtKramr
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
John Lansford
>They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
>
What do you want them to do? Bomb the reactor sites? That doesn't
destroy the plutonium stockpiles they've already got.
There is probably little the US or anyone else can do to stop NK from
building at least a handful of nuclear weapons unless they decide on a
"regime change" as Bush appears to want to do in Iraq. We don't have
the manpower to invade and occupy both Iraq and North Korea at the
same time.
John Lansford
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
W. Frederick Zimmerman, wfzimmerman.com
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021228191050...@mb-cc.aol.com...
> They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
>
To take out Iraq, which will take about three months. ;-)
ArtKramr
>From: John Lansford jlns...@bellsouth.net
>Date: 12/28/02 4:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <21hs0v0m4ik4f7s4v...@4ax.com>
We know North Korea has got it. We don't know if Iraq has it. What is your
priority?
ArtKramr
>Date: 12/28/02 4:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <hrrP9.747$134.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
That's what they said about WW I.
Jack Love
Do the one we're queued up to do...it would be hard to send all of
those troops equipped for the desert to NK and it is certainly not
clear that we want to invade the place in any case. The SoKoreans
have a reasonable concern about another round of up and down the
Peninsula with their much more valuable real estate getting damaged.
Anonymous
past. When faced with nuclear reactors, they simply bomb them, without
going to a full war status. It seems to have worked so far.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
W. Frederick Zimmerman, wfzimmerman.com
most likely scenario. we've had 10 yrs of no fly zone & embargo to improve
the odds. but if other mideast countries get involved, ww4.
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021228193907...@mb-mu.aol.com...
dwelsh46
"John Lansford" <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:21hs0v0m4ik4f7s4v...@4ax.com...
> artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
> >
> What do you want them to do? Bomb the reactor sites? That doesn't
> destroy the plutonium stockpiles they've already got.
>
> There is probably little the US or anyone else can do to stop NK from
> building at least a handful of nuclear weapons unless they decide on a
> "regime change" as Bush appears to want to do in Iraq. We don't have
> the manpower to invade and occupy both Iraq and North Korea at the
> same time.
I would contest the implication that we do not have the wherewithal to
defeat North Korea. That is by no means the same thing as invading and
occupying the PRK.
The US is capable of doing a great deal of damage both to the PRK war
machine and to the PRK economy. 50 years ago US airpower reduced both PRK
and Chicom forces in Korea to static infantry that could only move at night.
The much more potent air capability the US now has will relatively easily
and quickly take out anything that isn't hidden in a cave or tunnel.
How anyone in the PRK high command imagines that they have the capability to
conduct offensive military operations in the face of this threat is beyond
my understanding.
--
Dave Welsh
dave...@earthlink.net
Michael P Reed
I doubt very much if the DPRK is in much shape to even kick off a war, much
less sustain and defeat a much larger ROK army (counting premobilizible numbers
is about as daft as prior to WWI).
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Michael P Reed
> artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
> >
> What do you want them to do? Bomb the reactor sites? That doesn't
> destroy the plutonium stockpiles they've already got.
>
> There is probably little the US or anyone else can do to stop NK from
> building at least a handful of nuclear weapons unless they decide on a
> "regime change" as Bush appears to want to do in Iraq. We don't have
> the manpower to invade and occupy both Iraq and North Korea at the
> same time.
Any war on the Korean Peninsula would involve the South Koreans who just
happened to have a mobilized army in excess of four million. Manpower is not
the problem. North Korea is an economic basket case, and is near collapse
without the food and oil flowing in as a result of the current "Sunshine
policy." The continuation of which is now very much in doubt, as is the
North's ability to actually wage war. What we are seeing, IMO, is another
massive bluff by the DPRK to have its cake and to eat it to ala 1994, but
Clinton is no longer in office, and there will be no Carter "diplomatic
solution" forthcoming. Look for the Chinese (who would prefer to deal with the
far more prosperous ROK) to quietly lean on the DPRK to straighten up and fly
right.
Jack Love
The problem is that the predictions are (or were) that the 40K (IIRC)
guns that the NKs have on the DMZ are expected to vaporize that first
15 or 20 miles or so. Which includes Seoul...presumably a zillion or
so fairly long range ballistic rockets will also be fired. I agree
that a really effective invasion is unlikely but a spite destruction
of everything that is in range or can be sabotaged is not improbable.
Duke of URL
Well, if you think it's such a great idea, then gas up your B26 and have at
them.
ArtKramr
>Date: 12/28/02 10:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <v0t536c...@corp.supernews.com>
My B-26, "Willie The Wolf" was buried in Germany in 1945 when the war ended
where he lies to this day.
Jörg Bihlmayr
Anonymous schrieb:
> That's not the way the Israeli have dealt with similar situations in the
> past. When faced with nuclear reactors, they simply bomb them, without
> going to a full war status. It seems to have worked so far.
It has worked just one single time. And against an reactor still in the building
process. Quite different from the scenario in NK.
And don't forget that Seoul with 10 million inhabitants is perfectly withhin the
range of artillery...
Jörg
>
>
> John Lansford wrote:
--
Millionen PC's halten sich einen Menschen als Sklaven.
Wehrt Euch!
Lest Bücher!
Vince Brannigan
ArtKramr wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Pre-emptive strike against North Korea?
> >From: "Duke of URL" MacB...@KDSI.net
> >Date: 12/28/02 10:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <v0t536c...@corp.supernews.com>
> >
> >ArtKramr wrote:
> >
> >> They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
> >Well, if you think it's such a great idea, then gas up your B26 and have at
> >them.
>
> My B-26, "Willie The Wolf" was buried in Germany in 1945 when the war ended
> where he lies to this day.
Just wondering what do you mean by "buried". Most "crashed" aircraft were
"recycled" Do you have some other meaning?
Vince
ArtKramr
>Date: 12/29/02 5:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3E0EF780...@verizon.net>
See my website and click on:
IN REMEMBRANCE OF WILLIE THE WOLF
Willie was war weary when we got him. His first crew completed their tour of
duty and went home. Then we came, fresh from the US and yet to fly our first
mission. Willie's scars brought home the reality of where Willie had been and
where we had yet to go. He was dented, bruised and patched. Here and there some
of the Plexi was crazed where flak struck home. When we climbed in, there was a
strong smell of vomit mixed with urine and Cordite. Willie was the first battle
scarred plane we had ever been in. And he was ours, all ours.
As I write this, memories of Willie come back. I can hear the roar and feel the
vibration of the twin R-2800 engines. I can feel Willie surging forward as we
start down the runway, and I can see the runway speeding away under us as our
wheels slowly come up and lock in the wheel wells. As we climb to our place in
the formation the air gets chilled. I plug in my electric suit and pull up the
collar of my bomber jacket around me. We flew all our missions in Willie. He
never let us down. He took us out. And he brought us back. Often the worse for
wear with holes and dents, but he always brought us back.
Willie was always a lot more than just an airplane even though he was
officially a B-26G Martin Marauder of the 344th Bomb Group, 494th Bomb Squadron
of the 9th Air Force. He carried the white triangle on his tail of the 344th,
and the markings K9J of the 494th.
But Willie was one of us. Over Germany we could feel Willie shudder under the
punishing recoil of flak hits. But he had a heart of steel and just kept flying
on. When we landed we would walk around Willie and run our fingers over the
dents, into the holes and caress the peeling chipped paint. We really loved
Willie as much as any man can love a machine.
When the war ended they took Willie away, placed demolition charges under his
spars and blew him up. Then they bulldozed him into a ditch. And he lies buried
over there to this day. I can't help but feel that with Willie a small part of
each of us will always lie over there with him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Back to Art's Picture Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Send comments and questions to:
Art Kramer
Coastal Computers, Inc.
Copyright © 2001 Art Kramer and Coastal Computers, Inc.
Vince Brannigan
ArtKramr wrote:
> Willie as much as any man can love a machine.
>
> When the war ended they took Willie away, placed demolition charges under his
> spars and blew him up. Then they bulldozed him into a ditch. And he lies buried
> over there to this day. I can't help but feel that with Willie a small part of
> each of us will always lie over there with him.
But "in germany"? I ask because the recycling of aircraft was a major industry in
Britain if the aircraft were unflyable.
Did you fly the plnae to germany and it was destroyed there?
you mention in your very nice website
that willie was for sale for $150 But I doubt to the germans
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/150dollars.htm
sincerely
Vince
Anonymous
a mere reactor, and the NKs know it well. I wonder if their leaders are
willing and ready to be deposed. They saw what happened in Irak, NKs
military know they would make nothing else but excellent practice
targets for the US.
War is a Historical constant, it's a tool to be used. If you don't cut
the weeds, you lose the garden. Now, the question is, how can you defray
the costs of destroying NK..? We'd need to get something out of the war,
some worthy despoils, to make it cost efficient. Otherwise, we'd go the
way of Spain in the XVIII Century.
~^ beancounter ~^
you hit them unexpectedaly...
you hit them once.....
you hit them "where it counts"...
then, perhaps, you enguage them in dialoge...
Vince Brannigan
~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
unfortunately it also sounds like Sept. 11.
vince
~^ beancounter ~^
"sneak attack" ?? jeeezzz...
Jack Love
Good old Viknce...always reliable for a quote.
>vince
>
William Black
"Vince Brannigan" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E0F2B1C...@verizon.net...
Shit... You're good at this stuff.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Jim Watt
>Shelling Seoul would bring NK a far, far more profound destruction than
>a mere reactor, and the NKs know it well. I wonder if their leaders are
>willing and ready to be deposed. They saw what happened in Irak, NKs
>military know they would make nothing else but excellent practice
>targets for the US.
Of course there is the point that bombing NK would be a criminal act.
I don't remember America bombing the French for developing nuclear
weapons. As they have done tests recently they must have a good
grip of the subject. There is also the Pakis and Indians not to
mention Israel, who have been more economical in testing their
devices, but they haven't got any islands or territory to contaminate.
As for Iraq, if America has details about its WMD why not tell the
UN who seem to having great difficulty finding them.
Yes something really should be done about insane war mongering
leaders of rogue states.
At least the last president was content with an economy that balanced
and an occasional bit of recreational fun. Dubya is too stupid to
understand that a blow job does not involve dropping a bomb.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
William Hamblen
wrote:
>
>Of course there is the point that bombing NK would be a criminal act.
>
If you can wrap the North Korean activity in the cloak of an armistice
violation it wouldn't be.
Anonymous
countries you mention, are not.
Bush knows perfectly well that a BJ doesn't not necessarily involve
dropping a bomb. But hell, we have so many, it makes things more
interesting, and gives more bang for the buck.
BTW, how does it feel living under Dubya's supervision..? After all, we
are the big honchos, not you.
: )
Anonymous
State Of War was declared between Germany and the US, and yet we did it.
And Gibs should be thankful for that...
The US started bombing Hanoi after NVN torpedoboats attacked the USN 8th
(?) fleet. Gee whiz, those Charlie sailors had to be really crazy.
: )
James Hunter
"Anonymous" <Nobody> wrote in message news:3E0F8C27...@tld.net...
> NK is an enemy, whether currently held at bay or not. The other backward
> countries you mention, are not.
>
> Bush knows perfectly well that a BJ doesn't not necessarily involve
> dropping a bomb. But hell, we have so many, it makes things more
> interesting, and gives more bang for the buck.
>
> BTW, how does it feel living under Dubya's supervision..? After all, we
> are the big honchos, not you.
Dubya (being Air Force) doesn't seem to know that *dropping* a bomb
isn't all that big of a threat though. It's only airshots that are really
all that big of a deal.
He also being a lawyer is a big honcho only in sense that red ties
and telephones are big honchos.
R ESTEY
> In message <21hs0v0m4ik4f7s4v...@4ax.com>, John Lansford wrote:
> > artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> > >They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
> > >
> > What do you want them to do? Bomb the reactor sites? That doesn't
> > destroy the plutonium stockpiles they've already got.
> >
Bombing a "hot" reactor site is not smart - too much chance of spreading
radioactive debris downwind aka Japan. The Iraqi Osirak reactor was not
fueled and running when the Israelis trashed it in 1980. One mode of
attack is to hit subsidary equipment - ie electric power system especially
the transformers. Most very high voltage transformers are custom made and take
months to manufacture and install. Doubt NK has any spare ones around.
During Persian Gulf War (1991) US used Tomahawk missiles with warheads of
carbon filament fibers which were dropped over power substations to short
out transformers. Wonder if something similar could be done - would disable
site for months without causing politically damaging casulties and lasting
damage.
Anonymous
fly a fighter. You need both brains and brawn. I think the guy is far
more capable than what the media gives him credit for.
Heck, you wouldn't want Freddy Onestone as a prez. As it is, I wish
George clarity of mind,and lot'sa luck. And so should you, you'll have
to weather the consequence of his actions.
Ta'
James Hunter
"Anonymous" <Nobody> wrote in message news:3E0FD70B...@tld.net...
> Georgie Porgie is not AF, he was National Guard. Even so, not many can
> fly a fighter. You need both brains and brawn. I think the guy is far
> more capable than what the media gives him credit for.
>
> Heck, you wouldn't want Freddy Onestone as a prez. As it is, I wish
> George clarity of mind,and lot'sa luck. And so should you, you'll have
> to weather the consequence of his actions.
Why would I wish him luck?
If he had hair on his NG ass worthy of discussion,
he would have had Bin Laden DEAD, over a year ago.
Gernot Hassenpflug
--
G Hassenpflug RASC, Kyoto University
Matthew G. Saroff
>They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
>
>Arthur Kramer
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Best intel is that they already have two, and they
definitely have rockets that can reach Japan, they shot one half
way to Hawaii already..
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Matthew G. Saroff
>
>We know North Korea has got it. We don't know if Iraq has it. What is your
>priority?
<sarcasm>
The man who by his continued survival contributed to his
daddy's drubbing from some Arkansas hayseed.
</sarcasm>
ArtKramr
>Date: 12/29/02 9:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <unkv0vg4htj538gid...@4ax.com>
The effects of chaos theory overrides all of the above. (grin)
Jack Love
<ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
>Anybody watch 'Spawn' recently ? :-)
Yep...still a great movie. (DVD version that is.)
Anonymous
Garbage Bin Laden now. As I said, for all our sakes, wish him luck..!
Toots
-Özzama Bin Kenøbi-
>They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
You mean, what are they waiting for.
James Hunter
"Anonymous" <Nobody> wrote in message news:3E1075AF...@tld.net...
> Perhaps if you had wished him luck then, we wouldn't have to deal with
> Garbage Bin Laden now. As I said, for all our sakes, wish him luck..!
Certaintly not. Since the Republican Party has been the slowest
reaction to Airplane hijacking that the Earth has yet seen.
The only people who did it worse was the Israelis,
who have always preferred the "Shoot first and
let the Jehovah Witness' bury what's left" policy.
Mycroft
want to build more.
Myc
Fred J. McCall
:They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
They are believed to have at least one, possibly two, NOW. In six
months they'll have a dozen.
If you were North Korea and wanted to get pressure put on the West not
to interfere with you, what would YOU threaten, given a single nuke
and a missile that can shoot across Japan and land in the ocean on the
other side?
I wouldn't threaten South Korea....
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
John Lansford
>artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>:They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
>
>They are believed to have at least one, possibly two, NOW. In six
>months they'll have a dozen.
>
>If you were North Korea and wanted to get pressure put on the West not
>to interfere with you, what would YOU threaten, given a single nuke
>and a missile that can shoot across Japan and land in the ocean on the
>other side?
>
Japan has the ability to create nuclear weapons in months. They
already have the technology and the plutonium. All they need is the
political willpower and a reason. NK threatening Japan would give them
both.
However, I doubt that first generation NK nuclear devices are missile
capable. Their best use would probably be as either terrorist devices
or as atomic mines underneath the DMZ.
John Lansford
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Fred J. McCall
Jim Watt <jim...@aol.no.way> wrote:
:On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:25:51 -0500, Anonymous <Nobody> wrote:
:
:>Shelling Seoul would bring NK a far, far more profound destruction than
:>a mere reactor, and the NKs know it well. I wonder if their leaders are
:>willing and ready to be deposed. They saw what happened in Irak, NKs
:>military know they would make nothing else but excellent practice
:>targets for the US.
:
:Of course there is the point that bombing NK would be a criminal act.
Bullshit. We're still at war with North Korea. How would bombing
them be criminal?
:As for Iraq, if America has details about its WMD why not tell the
:UN who seem to having great difficulty finding them.
You really should read more. It's been in all the papers. And you
don't know WHAT the UN has or has not found, since they haven't
published a report yet.
:Yes something really should be done about insane war mongering
:leaders of rogue states.
The first bit of sense you've uttered. You don't mean it, of course.
:At least the last president was content with an economy that balanced
:and an occasional bit of recreational fun. Dubya is too stupid to
:understand that a blow job does not involve dropping a bomb.
If your brains were nitroglycerin and it went off, you wouldn't have a
large enough explosion to blow your nose....
Fred J. McCall
:Around Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:51:14 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> solemnly uttered:
:
:>:Of course there is the point that bombing NK would be a criminal act.
:>
:>Bullshit. We're still at war with North Korea. How would bombing
:>them be criminal?
:
:When did we declare war on North Korea?
We never ended the Korean War.
Fred J. McCall
:Around Wed, 01 Jan 2003 02:25:05 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> solemnly uttered:
:
:
:And the Russians are still at war with Japan too.
Well, no. The Japanese surrender document was signed on 2 September,
1945, by Kuzma Derevyanko for the USSR, among others. Having accepted
Japan's unconditional surrender, the USSR was no longer at war with
Japan after that date.
:Does that mean that
:them bombing Japan wouldn't be a criminal act?
No, it would be an act of war. If carried on as a continuation of
hostilities from WWII, it would be an act of war against the United
States, Britain, China (the Nationalists), Australia, Canada, France,
the Netherlands, and New Zealand, since we were the recipients of
Japan's unconditional surrender and hence are responsible for their
defense after that.
[Actually, only the US, Britain, China, and the USSR were recipients
of the surrender and accepted it. The others I listed merely signed
as 'interested parties'.]
:Ah hell, international law country vs country law isn't exactly what
:one would call consistent or even make any sense anyway.
It makes perfect sense unless one insists on bending it with one's
ideology to try to make it say things that it does not.
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Jim Watt
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Bullshit. We're still at war with North Korea. How would bombing
>them be criminal?
I thought your military disaster in North Korea was under the
auspices of the UN rather than America formally declared
war on NK. However if you consider that a state of war
exists its then its quite legitimate for them to bomb you.
If the North Koreans are as good at making weapons as the
South are consumer electronics, be worried.
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
- George W. Bush
Fred J. McCall
:On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:51:14 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Bullshit. We're still at war with North Korea. How would bombing
:>them be criminal?
:
:I thought your military disaster in North Korea
Interesting choice of phrase for an operation that achieved its
objectives, but I've come to expect no more from you.
:was under the
:auspices of the UN rather than America formally declared
:war on NK.
True, but irrelevant to the issue.
:However if you consider that a state of war
:exists its then its quite legitimate for them to bomb you.
It's always "quite legitimate" for one nation to initiate hostilities
against another. Another irrelevancy.
:If the North Koreans are as good at making weapons as the
:South are consumer electronics, be worried.
They aren't. Of course, they don't have to be to build a few nukes.
I worry more about the irrationality of their leadership than I do
about what they can and cannot build. I don't particularly want us to
wind up having to kill several million Koreans.
:"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
From what you post, it would seem that you would almost have to.
Jim Watt
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Interesting choice of phrase for an operation that achieved its
>objectives, but I've come to expect no more from you.
>
>:was under the
>:auspices of the UN rather than America formally declared
>:war on NK.
>
>True, but irrelevant to the issue.
So you say, but you are a stupid american.
>:If the North Koreans are as good at making weapons as the
>:South are consumer electronics, be worried.
>
>They aren't.
What do you know? remember the Pakistani nuclear test
took the CIA by total surprise and they are paid to look at such
possibility.
>I worry more about the irrationality
You should, I took a dump this morning and that was more
rational than you.
The quote about misstatements was from George Bush.
If North Korea wants to develop missiles and nuclear weapons
thats their right as a sovereign nation. Going round bombing
people is the work of terrorists.
Happy New year and watch out the arabs don't turn off
your oil for being a naughty boy.
Anonymous
to use Gibbons for target practice. We beat the crap of the NKs, and if
McArthur had had his way, he would have gone on to extend South Korea's
borders north up to China's . But unlike the UK, we have no interest in
extending our borders, and become another failed Empire, subsisting of
dreams of the Glory that was, and dancing to the tune of Georgie's Bush
fiddle.
Ta
: )
Dale Farmer
Alex Pavloff wrote:
> Around Wed, 01 Jan 2003 02:25:05 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> <fmc...@earthlink.net> solemnly uttered:
>
> >Alex Pavloff <REMOV...@pavloffTOEMAIL.net> wrote:
> >
> >:Around Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:51:14 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> >:<fmc...@earthlink.net> solemnly uttered:
> >:
> >:>:Of course there is the point that bombing NK would be a criminal act.
> >:>
> >:>Bullshit. We're still at war with North Korea. How would bombing
> >:>them be criminal?
> >:
> >:When did we declare war on North Korea?
> >
> >We never ended the Korean War.
>
> And the Russians are still at war with Japan too. Does that mean that
> them bombing Japan wouldn't be a criminal act?
>
> Ah hell, international law country vs country law isn't exactly what
> one would call consistent or even make any sense anyway.
IIRC, the Korean war was a UN police action, and the USA never
declared war. Similarly during the debates in October '02 for the
resolution authorizing the president to go after Iraq, they explicitly
voted down the amendment by Ron Paul to declare a state of war
between the US and Iraq. The chairman of the committee said that
the constitutional provision requiring congress to declare war was an
obsolete part of the constitution, and should be ignored.
Peace is war. War is peace.
--Dale
Jim Watt
>Military disaster is what's going to happen to the UK, the day we decide
>to use Gibbons for target practice. We beat the crap of the NKs,
Yeah yeah
I'm surprised that one of your inbred neigbours hasn't shot you
yet Mr Anon-y-mouse.
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because
they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous
sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
... Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
Fred J. McCall
Congratulations on being the first dipshit of the New Year.
<plonk>
Jim Watt <jim...@aol.no.way> wrote:
:On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 15:09:27 GMT, Fred J. McCall
Paul J. Adam
writes
>Military disaster is what's going to happen to the UK, the day we decide
>to use Gibbons for target practice.
<sings>
Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!
</sings>
>We beat the crap of the NKs, and if
>McArthur had had his way, he would have gone on to extend South Korea's
>borders north up to China's .
MacArthur was doing just that when the Chinese decided to come south and
prevent it. MacArthur completely overlooked the possibility of Chinese
intervention, and got a lot of good men killed as a result.
>But unlike the UK, we have no interest in
>extending our borders, and become another failed Empire, subsisting of
>dreams of the Glory that was, and dancing to the tune of Georgie's Bush
>fiddle.
I can't snip this... it's just too funny for words. When was the last
time we were "extending our borders"? I'll lay good money it wasn't
during my lifetime, nor my father's neither.
Is Anonymous serious? I think not. I know I'm not :)
--
Paul J. Adam
Fred J. McCall
: IIRC, the Korean war was a UN police action, and the USA never
:declared war.
True. However, as a UN member and one of the belligerents, no real
peace was ever established. It ended with a cease fire under the
armistice agreement.
:Similarly during the debates in October '02 for the
:resolution authorizing the president to go after Iraq, they explicitly
:voted down the amendment by Ron Paul to declare a state of war
:between the US and Iraq. The chairman of the committee said that
:the constitutional provision requiring congress to declare war was an
:obsolete part of the constitution, and should be ignored.
There is no provision REQUIRING Congress to declare war before
military action can be taken. There are lots of examples, going clear
back to the Barbary Pirates. In fact, declared wars are the distinct
minority among episodes involving US military action.
If what you want is legal precedent, see Bas v Tingy (1800) and the
Prize Cases from the US Civil War (also not a declared war, by the
way).
:Peace is war. War is peace.
And fools are apparently fools.
Fred J. McCall
:Around Wed, 01 Jan 2003 04:24:46 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> solemnly uttered:
:
:>Well, no. The Japanese surrender document was signed on 2 September,
:>1945, by Kuzma Derevyanko for the USSR, among others. Having accepted
:>Japan's unconditional surrender, the USSR was no longer at war with
:>Japan after that date.
:
:Alright, they may not be at war, but the USSR never signed a peace
:treaty with Japan, like the US and UK did in San Francisco in 1951.
:
:So, in the absence of peace, what do you have?
Accepting an unconditional surrender is 'peace', you numbskull.
Vince Brannigan
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
actually it is not.
For example
4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be
superseded by any general instrument of
surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the
United Nations and applicable to GERMANY and the German armed forces as a
whole. 5. In the event of the German High Command or any of the forces
under their control failing to act in accordance with this Act of
Surrender, the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and the Soviet
High Command will take such punitive or other action as they deem
appropriate.
Surrender is not peace.
Vince
John 14 15-21
Vince,
Fred said unconditional surrender.
There is no need for a treaty on the basis of unconditional surrender. Even in
"Conditional" surrender there is often no need for a treaty.
The ceasing of hostilities under restrictive conditions requires a treaty. I
believe World War One might be an example.
Many have argued that the restrictive conditions put on Germany because of
World War One, led to World War Two.
Alas, but treaties,like many things, are often no more then legal fiction.
---------------------
Remember: Jesus is Lord!
Romans 10:9-10, John 14:15-21, Acts 2:38, Eph 2:7-10, Matthew 5:3-16, 1Cor 15,
John Chapter Three, Romans Chapter Eight, The Book of First John. :)
http://www.unshackled.org/ Old Time Radio Drama / Lives Changed by Christ
"The Gospel is about what God has done for us and what we
can become in Christ; it's about a relationship with Christ being
the answer to our deepest needs. The Good News offers lost people
what they are frantically searching for: forgiveness, freedom, security,
purpose, love, acceptance, and strength. It settles our past, assures
our future, and gives meaning to today. It is the best news in the WORLD."
-----Pastor Rick Warren
Page 224, The Purpose Driven Church, Copyright 1995, ISBN 0-310-20106-3
K-Love : Christian Music, News and Information.
Outstanding Bible Teaching online: Thru the Bible Radio.
Multiple Bible Translations including non English.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?
__________________________________
"Most High, glorious God, enlighten the darkness of my heart, and give me a
right faith, a sure hope, a perfect charity."
----St Francis of Assisi
-
"Reasons last step is the recognition that there is an infinite number of
things that go beyond it"---Blaise Pascal.
John 14 15-21
>
>Around Wed, 01 Jan 2003 04:24:46 GMT, Fred J. McCall
><fmc...@earthlink.net> solemnly uttered:
>
>>Well, no. The Japanese surrender document was signed on 2 September,
>>1945, by Kuzma Derevyanko for the USSR, among others. Having accepted
>>Japan's unconditional surrender, the USSR was no longer at war with
>>Japan after that date.
>
>Alright, they may not be at war, but the USSR never signed a peace
>treaty with Japan, like the US and UK did in San Francisco in 1951.
>
>So, in the absence of peace, what do you have?
>
>--
> Alex Pavloff
Fiction! Treaties and other such things are often not even worth the paper
they are written on.
If you have defeated an enemy, and you are occupying the other country, why do
you need a peace treaty 6 years after the event?
What happened in 1951 is that we let Japan be an independent country again with
mild restrictions. We were not at a state of war between 1945 and 1951.
------------------------
Jack Love
wrote:
>> Alex Pavloff REMOVEalex@pavloffTOEMAIL wrote:
>
>>
>>Around Wed, 01 Jan 2003 04:24:46 GMT, Fred J. McCall
>><fmc...@earthlink.net> solemnly uttered:
>>
>>>Well, no. The Japanese surrender document was signed on 2 September,
>>>1945, by Kuzma Derevyanko for the USSR, among others. Having accepted
>>>Japan's unconditional surrender, the USSR was no longer at war with
>>>Japan after that date.
>>
>>Alright, they may not be at war, but the USSR never signed a peace
>>treaty with Japan, like the US and UK did in San Francisco in 1951.
>>
>>So, in the absence of peace, what do you have?
>>
>>--
>> Alex Pavloff
>
>Fiction! Treaties and other such things are often not even worth the paper
>they are written on.
Oops...you've just undermined the entire Carter & Clinton years
'diplomacy'.
>If you have defeated an enemy, and you are occupying the other country, why do
>you need a peace treaty 6 years after the event?
>
>What happened in 1951 is that we let Japan be an independent country again with
>mild restrictions. We were not at a state of war between 1945 and 1951.
>
>------------------------
>x
Vince Brannigan
John 14 15-21 wrote:
my point is narrow but important.
Wars exist both De facto and de jure. In a state of war (bellus) , belligerents
have "belligerent rights". For example the right to keep peopel as prioners of
war does not terminate with the surrender of one party. As state of war still
exists
This is why Nov. 11 was always celebrated as "armistice day" an armistice is a
cessasion of hostilities but not a termination of the state of war.
see also
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title50a/50a_1_5_.html
TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN
The Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on the 8th day
of
September 1951, Chapter I, Article 1, provides:
(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated
as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan
and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.
Article 23 of Chapter VII, above referred to, provides:
(a) The present Treaty shall be ratified by the States which sign it, including
Japan, and will
come into force for all the States which have then ratified
it, when instruments of ratification
have been deposited by Japan and by a majority, including the
United States of America as
the principal occupying Power, of the following States [here
would appear the names of such
of the following States as are signatories to the present
Treaty], namely Australia, Burma,
Canada, Ceylon, France, India, Indonesia, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Pakistan, the
Philippines, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, and the United States of America. The
present Treaty shall come into
force for each State which subsequently ratifies it, on the
date of the deposit of its instrument
of ratification.
(b) If the Treaty has not come into force within nine months
after the date of the deposit of
Japan's ratification, any State which has ratified it may
bring the Treaty into force between
itself and Japan by a notification to that effect given to
the Government of Japan and of the
United States of America not later than three years after the
date of deposit of Japan's
ratification.
RATIFICATION OF JAPANESE PEACE TREATY
The Treaty of Peace with Japan, signed at San Francisco on
September 8, 1951, was ratified
by the United States Senate on March 20, 1952. For Resolution
of ratification, see
Congressional Record, Vol. 98, No. 46, Thursday, March 20,
1952, p. 2634.
GERMANY
JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS
Joint Res. Oct. 19, 1951, ch. 519, 65 Stat. 451, provided:
"That the state of war declared to
exist between the United States and the Government of Germany
by the joint resolution of
Congress approved December 11, 1941, is hereby terminated and
such termination shall
take effect on the date of enactment of this resolution [Oct.
19, 1951]: Provided, however,
That notwithstanding this resolution and any proclamation
issued by the President pursuant
thereto, any property or interest which prior to January 1,
1947, was subject to vesting or
seizure under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy
Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat.
411), as amended [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, 41 to 44 of this
Appendix] or which has
heretofore been vested or seized under that Act, including
accruals to or proceeds of any
such property or interest, shall continue to be subject to
the provisions of that Act in the same
manner and to the same extent as if this resolution had not
been adopted and such
proclamation had not been issued. Nothing herein and nothing
in such proclamation shall alter
the status, as it existed immediately prior hereto, under
that Act, of Germany or of any person
with respect to any such property or interest."
PROCLAMATION NO. 2950
Proc. No. 2950, Oct. 25, 1951, 16 F.R. 10915, 66 Stat. c3,
proclaimed that the state of
war between the United States and the Government of Germany
declared on Dec. 11, 1941
was terminated on Oct. 19, 1951.
vince
Vince Brannigan
John 14 15-21 wrote:
> > Alex Pavloff REMOVEalex@pavloffTOEMAIL wrote:
>
> >
> >Around Wed, 01 Jan 2003 04:24:46 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> ><fmc...@earthlink.net> solemnly uttered:
> >
> >>Well, no. The Japanese surrender document was signed on 2 September,
> >>1945, by Kuzma Derevyanko for the USSR, among others. Having accepted
> >>Japan's unconditional surrender, the USSR was no longer at war with
> >>Japan after that date.
> >
> >Alright, they may not be at war, but the USSR never signed a peace
> >treaty with Japan, like the US and UK did in San Francisco in 1951.
> >
> >So, in the absence of peace, what do you have?
> >
> >--
> > Alex Pavloff
>
> Fiction! Treaties and other such things are often not even worth the paper
> they are written on.
>
> If you have defeated an enemy, and you are occupying the other country, why do
> you need a peace treaty 6 years after the event?
>
> What happened in 1951 is that we let Japan be an independent country again with
> mild restrictions. We were not at a state of war between 1945 and 1951.
you are incorrect.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN
The Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San
Francisco on the 8th day of
September 1951, Chapter I, Article 1, provides:
(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied
Powers is terminated as from the
date on which the present Treaty comes into force between
Japan and the Allied Power
concerned as provided for in Article 23.
Vince
tj bandrowsky
>
If the United States withdraws from South Korea, the north will move
in with nuclear weapons and a bunch of other stuff. That will wreck
every company that competes against American firms.
You ask why should we save South Korea <again>
Yesterday, South Koreans were burning American flags <again>
I'm asking, why should the United States defend South Korea <at all>
Fred J. McCall
:> They will have a nuclear device in 6 months. What are we waiting for?
:>
:
:If the United States withdraws from South Korea, the north will move
:in with nuclear weapons
All both of them?
:and a bunch of other stuff. That will wreck
:every company that competes against American firms.
No, because ROK troops would expunge the poorly equipped PRK troops in
fairly short order.
:You ask why should we save South Korea <again>
Who asked that?
:Yesterday, South Koreans were burning American flags <again>
:
:I'm asking, why should the United States defend South Korea <at all>
Perhaps you should look at the economics of things again?
John 14 15-21
Wow Vince!
Name one battle between America and Japan between 1946-51, like I said, Legal
Fiction. LOL
-----------------------------
John 14 15-21
>
>Oops...you've just undermined the entire Carter & Clinton years
>'diplomacy'.
>
Yes...some do call appeasement "diplomacy." "Peace in our time" to think of one
PM in Britain just before World War Two.
John 14 15-21
>my point is narrow but important.
>
>Wars exist both De facto and de jure. In a state of war (bellus) ,
>belligerents
>have "belligerent rights". For example the right to keep peopel as prioners
>of
>war does not terminate with the surrender of one party. As state of war
>still
>exists
>
>This is why Nov. 11 was always celebrated as "armistice day" an armistice is
>a
>cessasion of hostilities but not a termination of the state of war.
>
Vince, I do not doubt the "legal" reality of what you are saying. What I
question is the practical reality as opposed to what I maintain is simply legal
fiction.
I will use this point. I can write a consitution that proclaims "Justice for
All."
It can become the law of the land. But is there reality in "Justice for all."
What your saying to me is that it must be true simply because it's on a piece
of paper that recognized by the legal community.
Reality can be quite different. "Justice for all" for me means that there is
actual implementation of "Justice for all."
A person can be innocent of a crime and guilty in the legal sense and forced to
pay the penalty for the crime that he did not commit. That to me is legal
fiction.
Please forgive me for not thinking like a lawyer, I tend to deal with real
world realities as opposed to "legal fiction."
My point is not with the points of the law in which you are thinking about. My
point is the reality of the situation. What war between 1946-1951?
The war may have been going on in a legal sense, but in reality the war was
over, even to the point that we could dictate the "peace treaty."
Thanks for your legal reply. Your so fun Vince! I have no doubt the legal
points you made are true.
---------------------------------
Vince Brannigan
John 14 15-21 wrote:
you seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of a "legal fiction" Which is
properly an "Assumption of a fact that may or may not be true, made by a court to
decide a legal question. " or as the older treatise points out.
"A fiction of law "is defined to be a legal assumption that a thing is true which
is either not true, or which is as probably false as true; the rule on this
subject being that the court will not endure that a mere form or fiction of law,
introduced for the sake of justice, should work a wrong contrary to the real
truth and substance of the thing." (Per Lord Mansfield, C. J., Johnson v. Smith, 2
Burr. 962; Broom's Legal Maxims, 128.)"
Legal fictions are not common. perhaps the msot well known is that the subsequent
marraige of two perons "legitimized" children born to the couple before they were
married, so long as at the time of the child birth they were legally capable of
marrying one another. the legal fiction is that they were in fact "secretly
married" similarly the law of adverse posession relies on a legal fiction of a
"lost deed" which acutally gave the right to occuply the land. . .
§
" The basis of prescription is that if long enjoyment of a right is shown, the
court will strive to uphold the right by presuming that it had a lawful origin.
Thus, the court may presume, on proof of the fact of long enjoyment, that there
once was an actual grant of the right, even though it is impossible to produce
any direct evidence of such a grant."
But since a state of war is a legal status, not a fact to be assumed, it is
itself a conclusion of law it requires no legal fiction to underly it
Vince
ArtKramr
>From: thena...@aol.comsec (John 14 15-21)
>Date: 1/1/03 8:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030101231149...@mb-ml.aol.com>
>
>>Vince Brannigan vze2...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>>my point is narrow but important.
>>
>>Wars exist both De facto and de jure. In a state of war (bellus) ,
>>belligerents
>>have "belligerent rights". For example the right to keep peopel as prioners
>>of
>>war does not terminate with the surrender of one party. As state of war
>>still
>>exists
>>
>>This is why Nov. 11 was always celebrated as "armistice day" an armistice is
>>a
>>cessasion of hostilities but not a termination of the state of war.
>>
>
>Vince, I do not doubt the "legal" reality of what you are saying. What I
>question is the practical reality as opposed to what I maintain is simply
>legal
>fiction.
>
>I will use this point. I can write a consitution that proclaims "Justice for
>All."
>It can become the law of the land. But is there reality in "Justice for
>all."
>What your saying to me is that it must be true simply because it's on a piece
>of paper that recognized by the legal community.
>
>Reality can be quite different. "Justice for all" for me means that there is
>actual implementation of "Justice for all."
Justice for all has no meaning until we define "justice" and define "all". The
idea of equal justice under the law and due process always existed. But it took
over a hundred years before the equal rights legislation and the 14th
amendment was passed and separate but equal was overtured and the process is
still going on. I feel that in the long run good law replaces bad law and
justice is done It may take time, but the 14th amendment is a case in point.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Fred J. McCall
:"... contrary to the real
:truth and substance of the thing." (Per Lord Mansfield, C. J., Johnson v. Smith, 2
:Burr. 962; Broom's Legal Maxims, 128.)"
But I thought your position was that there was no such thing as "the
real truth and substance" of anything, because it was all subject to
consensus?
--
"It's over now, or so they say.
But sometimes it don't work out that way.
And you're never the same when you've been under fire."
-- Huey Lewis and the News "Walking On A Thin Line"
Peter Skelton
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>" The basis of prescription is that if long enjoyment of a right is shown, the
>court will strive to uphold the right by presuming that it had a lawful origin.
>Thus, the court may presume, on proof of the fact of long enjoyment, that there
>once was an actual grant of the right, even though it is impossible to produce
>any direct evidence of such a grant."
>
>But since a state of war is a legal status, not a fact to be assumed, it is
>itself a conclusion of law it requires no legal fiction to underly it
>
If one allows free use of one's land for many years, those
enjoying it acquire the right whether formal permission was given
or not. Is the fact being assumed the grant of permission?
If a couple cohabit for long enough and do enough together, the
courts used to assume that they were married (around here the law
has been changed to formally define enough). Marriage is a legal
status but the commitment/mutual granting of status is a fact
being assumed isn't it?
A state of war is a legal status, but there is a fair amount of
international law defining under what conditions a country may
assume that another is at war with it.
ISTM that a legal fiction very often simply replaces a commitment
or declaration that a party has failed to make. A declaration of
a status fits.
____
Peter Skelton
Joe Osman
The main difference in practical terms between a surrender
and a peace treaty is the status of the occupying power. If
an American soldier killed a Japanese citizen before the
treaty, the Japanese couldn't do anything about it. After
the peace treaty, they had some input into the status of
forces agreement. The use of US bases in Japan during the
Korean War is another example. Before the treaty, the
Japanese had no input into the use of the bases against the
North Koreans.
Joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Fred J. McCall
:The main difference in practical terms between a surrender
:and a peace treaty is the status of the occupying power. If
:an American soldier killed a Japanese citizen before the
:treaty, the Japanese couldn't do anything about it. After
:the peace treaty, they had some input into the status of
:forces agreement. The use of US bases in Japan during the
:Korean War is another example. Before the treaty, the
:Japanese had no input into the use of the bases against the
:North Koreans.
In other words, in this case a 'peace treaty' was really permission
from the victor to be a real country again rather than an occupied
one.
I believe someone else already noted that this was what really
happened.
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
Vince Brannigan
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> Vince Brannigan <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> :"... contrary to the real
> :truth and substance of the thing." (Per Lord Mansfield, C. J., Johnson v. Smith, 2
> :Burr. 962; Broom's Legal Maxims, 128.)"
>
> But I thought your position was that there was no such thing as "the
> real truth and substance" of anything, because it was all subject to
> consensus?
in the legal systems Facts are the outocme of a process. the fact finder is the
jury. the process is the trial. the raw data for fact finding is "evidence" the law
is then applied to the facts as determined by the fact finder. Facts are a consensus
statement. In the case of trials it is the consensus of the jury in repsonse to the
evidence. Sicne separate juries exposed to the same evidence can conclude different
facts, it is a precise illustraion of my point.
Vince
Anonymous
courage and audacity of field mice. Or do you mean Mexicans and
Canadians..?
I wonder why you Gibs call yourselves British, being the motley
offspring of Gypsies, Chinese, Africans, Hindi, Pakistanies, Moroccans
and who-knows-what. Your European ancestry is less than that of your
apes...
TTFN
: )
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Vince Brannigan
Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 04:15:09 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >" The basis of prescription is that if long enjoyment of a right is shown, the
> >court will strive to uphold the right by presuming that it had a lawful origin.
> >Thus, the court may presume, on proof of the fact of long enjoyment, that there
> >once was an actual grant of the right, even though it is impossible to produce
> >any direct evidence of such a grant."
> >
> >But since a state of war is a legal status, not a fact to be assumed, it is
> >itself a conclusion of law it requires no legal fiction to underly it
> >
>
> If one allows free use of one's land for many years, those
> enjoying it acquire the right whether formal permission was given
> or not. Is the fact being assumed the grant of permission?
Actually if you formally "allow it" its a license and not an easement and does not
give rise to adverse possession.
The adverse possession has to be under "claim of right"
> If a couple cohabit for long enough and do enough together, the
> courts used to assume that they were married (around here the law
> has been changed to formally define enough). Marriage is a legal
> status but the commitment/mutual granting of status is a fact
> being assumed isn't it?
no. common law marriage was not a "legal fiction" i.e. there was no assumption f a
secret marriage. it is a legal status proved by a set of facts.
> A state of war is a legal status, but there is a fair amount of
> international law defining under what conditions a country may
> assume that another is at war with it.
that is why there are both "de jure" and "de facto" states of war.
> ISTM that a legal fiction very often simply replaces a commitment
> or declaration that a party has failed to make. A declaration of
> a status fits.
no. I agree the distinction is subtle and of use only to the legal system. But a
legal fiction is always a statement of "fact". Some "declarations create facts,
some don't
As an example, in a trial you can move for summary judgment. This requires the judge
to assume for the moment that all the testimony given by the other side is true and
credible. you then claim despite that fact you should still win. The assumption for
the purpose of summary judgment is a form of "legal fiction". It allows the party
to test the law without conceding on the facts. If they lose on the law , they can
still argue that the evidence should not be believed.
The concept of legal fiction should not be confused with the problem of "legal
realism". Legal realism is the question of whether the law in reality reflects the
law on the books. The discontinuity between the law as written and the law as
enforced is a major issue even separate from the inherent delays and uncertainties
in the process.
Declarations of status are not statments of facts.
The bombing of the PANAY for example was a "belligerent act". duriing the attack one
coudl argue that a "de facto state of war" existed. however the USA and Japan came
to anagreemnt in which the USA accepted and apology and an indemnity, so no De Jure
state of war ever existed.
The TRENT affair can be treated the same way. neither involved a "legal fiction"
Vince
Anonymous
with you, but with that laggard, Jimbo Half-Witt. The words are chose
accordingly, but if you choose to join the fray on his side, well, it's
your call.
Regarding being "tough enough", you know better than that. We have
proved that to Britain, specifically, several times over.
McArthur was recalled to the US because he fully intended to invade and
nuke the Chinese, and openly defied the prez orders against that. The
move was disguised as a promotion, and as a National event to honor a
Conquering Hero. Douglas was left stranded in the US, very far away from
his tactical weapons. That's why he tried to run for president, to
regain control of them.
The seeds of the Vietnam conflict arise from the French and the Brits
trying to regain their grasp over former asian colonies, to the extent
that even remanent Japanese military were rearmed and used against the
newborn Vietnamese government. If I recall correctly, the last spasms
of Empire took place during the Suez canal crisis in the fifties, and
you recalled you troops, because we told you to, or else.
Remember, there are no such thing as friendly nations, only nations with
similar interests. That's the reason the US has traditionally propped-up
and supported your government on international matters, including the
Falklands.
The reason we did not invade China, North Korea, or more recenty Irak,
is simply because we are not an Empire,and also, we have no interest in
boot-strapping their failed economies. Which also means, we have no
interest in invading the UK.
Regards
C. Moi
Anonymous
Ruskis assisted by invading them...
Alex Pavloff wrote:
>
> Around Wed, 01 Jan 2003 04:24:46 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> <fmc...@earthlink.net> solemnly uttered:
>
> >Well, no. The Japanese surrender document was signed on 2 September,
> >1945, by Kuzma Derevyanko for the USSR, among others. Having accepted
> >Japan's unconditional surrender, the USSR was no longer at war with
> >Japan after that date.
>
> Alright, they may not be at war, but the USSR never signed a peace
> treaty with Japan, like the US and UK did in San Francisco in 1951.
>
> So, in the absence of peace, what do you have?
>
> --
> Alex Pavloff -- www.pavloff.net
> **** What would Jeebus do? ****
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/2/03 6:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3E14472E...@verizon.net>
A peace treaty sets out the conditions of the peace. Occupation, reparations,
limitations of future armamament, nature of governement. Without that we have
peace under martial law, a condition which cannot go on for long.. After WW II
ended I served for 2 years in the American military Governement. Not a pretty
picture.
Peter Skelton
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
As an example, in a trial you can move for summary judgment. This
requires the judge
>to assume for the moment that all the testimony given by the other side is true and
>credible. you then claim despite that fact you should still win. The assumption for
>the purpose of summary judgment is a form of "legal fiction". It allows the party
>to test the law without conceding on the facts. If they lose on the law , they can
>still argue that the evidence should not be believed.
Thanks, I think that finally got it through my head.
____
Peter Skelton
Jim Watt
>Possibly because my Gib neighbours are very poor shooters, and have the
>courage and audacity of field mice. Or do you mean Mexicans and
>Canadians..?
>
>I wonder why you Gibs call yourselves British, being the motley
>offspring of Gypsies, Chinese, Africans, Hindi, Pakistanies, Moroccans
>and who-knows-what. Your European ancestry is less than that of your
>apes...
Oh a racist Anon-y-mouse.
Anonymous
Didn't raise your goat..? Hmmm
tj bandrowsky
> No, because ROK troops would expunge the poorly equipped PRK troops in
> fairly short order.
Well then, why is the US needed?
> Who asked that?
It was a rhetorical question. The South Koreans do not like the
United States military presence on their soil. They do not like the
leading role that we are taking in managing what they view as their
problem. If the South Koreans can defeat the North Koreans by
themselves, and I think they can, and, the South Korean PEOPLE don't
like the US Military presence, then, why on earth is the US Military
in South Korea?
> Perhaps you should look at the economics of things again?
I understand the economic benefits of trade with SK. But you just
said that the South Korea can defend itself on its own. If they can,
why not let them. We could provide air support from the Navy, but if
our troops are a sitting target AND a source of damage to our
relationship with SK,then let's pull them out!
Fred J. McCall
:>
:> No, because ROK troops would expunge the poorly equipped PRK troops in
:> fairly short order.
:
:Well then, why is the US needed?
Because they are more likely to HAVE to defend themselves if we are
not there.
:> Who asked that?
:
:It was a rhetorical question.
Rhetorical questions don't start with "You asked....".
:The South Koreans do not like the
:United States military presence on their soil. They do not like the
:leading role that we are taking in managing what they view as their
:problem. If the South Koreans can defeat the North Koreans by
:themselves, and I think they can, and, the South Korean PEOPLE don't
:like the US Military presence, then, why on earth is the US Military
:in South Korea?
Because stability (such as it is) on the Korean peninsula is in our
own best interests.
:> Perhaps you should look at the economics of things again?
:
:I understand the economic benefits of trade with SK. But you just
:said that the South Korea can defend itself on its own. If they can,
:why not let them. We could provide air support from the Navy, but if
:our troops are a sitting target AND a source of damage to our
:relationship with SK,then let's pull them out!
And guarantee a war, the outcome of which we will have no say in.
Incredibly intelligent of you.
John 14 15-21
>The main difference in practical terms between a surrender
>and a peace treaty is the status of the occupying power. If
>an American soldier killed a Japanese citizen before the
>treaty, the Japanese couldn't do anything about it. After
>the peace treaty, they had some input into the status of
>forces agreement. The use of US bases in Japan during the
>Korean War is another example. Before the treaty, the
>Japanese had no input into the use of the bases against the
>North Koreans.
>
>Joe
>
This exactly in line with my orginal post. With the *peace treaty" we allowed
them to be an independent nation. We gave up "rights" that we had earned in
combat.
There was no war between 1946-51. We were simply in the occupying mode.
-------------------------------------
tj bandrowsky
> :said that the South Korea can defend itself on its own. If they can,
> :why not let them. We could provide air support from the Navy, but if
> :our troops are a sitting target AND a source of damage to our
> :relationship with SK,then let's pull them out!
>
> And guarantee a war, the outcome of which we will have no say in.
> Incredibly intelligent of you.
>
Does it guarantee a war? That IS the question.
If
the mere act of withdrawing 30,000 US troops guarantees an NK invasion
despite the offshore presence of a carrier battlegroup plus another
two within two weeks sailing distance, plus 500,000 SK troops and
their own fine air force...
and it is SO incredibly important for the US to defend SK - even to
the point where our act of defense violates the self determinate
rights of the SK people,
then, why don't we act pre-emptively against NK?
Logically, you are boxing yourself into a corner. You are basically
saying that we should preserve the status quo - which, is violate the
wishes of the South Korean people (who want us to leave), in order to
keep the North Koreans out? If we don't want to leave ourselves,
despite the fact that those people hate us, then, aren't we really
acting like an empire ourselves?
I'd rather the United States remain a Republic as it was founded, a
nation that fosters self-determination and democracy abroad, as it has
done so in the past. Instead, we are some geopolitical wonk state
that has completely forgotten its own ideals in a naked quest for
global supremecy and I think that is bullshit.
Fred J. McCall
:> :I understand the economic benefits of trade with SK. But you just
:> :said that the South Korea can defend itself on its own. If they can,
:> :why not let them. We could provide air support from the Navy, but if
:> :our troops are a sitting target AND a source of damage to our
:> :relationship with SK,then let's pull them out!
:>
:> And guarantee a war, the outcome of which we will have no say in.
:> Incredibly intelligent of you.
:
:Does it guarantee a war? That IS the question.
If we pull out and tell South Korea, "You're on your own, guys"?
Yeah, it probably pretty much does.
:If
:
:the mere act of withdrawing 30,000 US troops guarantees an NK invasion
:despite the offshore presence of a carrier battlegroup plus another
:two within two weeks sailing distance, plus 500,000 SK troops and
:their own fine air force...
:
:and it is SO incredibly important for the US to defend SK - even to
:the point where our act of defense violates the self determinate
:rights of the SK people,
:
:then, why don't we act pre-emptively against NK?
Because that would be an equally stupid thing to do. You're proposing
an invasion, I presume?
:Logically, you are boxing yourself into a corner.
Nonsense.
:You are basically
:saying that we should preserve the status quo -
No. You should really stick with what I say rather than what you want
me to have said.
:which, is violate the
:wishes of the South Korean people (who want us to leave), in order to
:keep the North Koreans out?
Except the wishes of the South Korean government, elected by the South
Korean people, seem somewhat at odds with your claim above. So who do
we listen to, the wishes of the majority if the South Korean people as
embodied by their elected government or the wishes of some section of
the South Korean people who are particularly vocal?
:If we don't want to leave ourselves,
:despite the fact that those people hate us, then, aren't we really
:acting like an empire ourselves?
No.
:I'd rather the United States remain a Republic as it was founded, a
:nation that fosters self-determination and democracy abroad, as it has
:done so in the past.
Which is precisely what is the end result of our presence in South
Korea, interestingly enough.
:Instead, we are some geopolitical wonk state
:that has completely forgotten its own ideals in a naked quest for
:global supremecy and I think that is bullshit.
And I think you and your opinion are both bullshit. Back under the
bridge, son....
Michael P Reed
wrote:
> the mere act of withdrawing 30,000 US troops guarantees an NK invasion
> despite the offshore presence of a carrier battlegroup plus another
> two within two weeks sailing distance, plus 500,000 SK troops and
> their own fine air force...
The troops are in Korea not so much for need of protection, but prevention.
> Logically, you are boxing yourself into a corner. You are basically
> saying that we should preserve the status quo - which, is violate the
> wishes of the South Korean people (who want us to leave),
The South Koreans have no wish for us to leave. The recent protests were about
what they consider a fairer partnership in US-ROK relationships (specfically
the SOFA), and were not the "Yankee Go Home" variety. Protest leaders (and ROK
pols) were very quick to point that out, and that is why the NYT editorial
caused such a stir. The ROK's are very divided on the issue of the "Sunshine
Policy" instituted by Pres. Kim (and to be continued by Prez-elect Roh), and it
splits pretty much down party lines. While the MDP [crudely the "liberal"
party] continues to control the Presidency, the legislature is controlled by
the ("conservative") NDP who are much more antigonistic toward the North, and
feel that the Sunshine Policy has failed.
> in order to
> keep the North Koreans out? If we don't want to leave ourselves,
> despite the fact that those people hate us, then, aren't we really
> acting like an empire ourselves?
As mentioned, the South Koreans do not hate us, and if some do, they still see
it in their best interests to keep us there. That is why Roh is bending over
backwards to not appear as the anti-American that his history would indicate.
The current DPRK beligerance is most likely just an attempt to drive a wedge
between the U.S. and the ROK, and they're just trying to take advantage of the
recent protests (over a completely different issue), but it looks like they may
have over-played their hand a bit.
> I'd rather the United States remain a Republic as it was founded, a
> nation that fosters self-determination and democracy abroad, as it has
> done so in the past. Instead, we are some geopolitical wonk state
> that has completely forgotten its own ideals in a naked quest for
> global supremecy and I think that is bullshit.
ohhh kayyy...
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Jim Watt
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I think you and your opinion are both bullshit.
Theres a lot of it about, mostly from your direction.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
Howard Berkowitz
wrote:
I always cherish Teapot Dome during the Harding Administration, where
Doheny was acquitted of bribing Interior Secretary Fall, while Fall (in
a separate trial) was convicted of receiving a bribe from Doheny.
tj bandrowsky
> If we pull out and tell South Korea, "You're on your own, guys"?
> Yeah, it probably pretty much does.
Does it? That's the question. Are you sure?
> Because that would be an equally stupid thing to do. You're proposing
> an invasion, I presume?
So, basically, if we aren't going to have some sort of a raid on North
Korea, or not pull out, basically, what we're saying is, the Americans
are now committed to a perpetual nuclear standoff on the Korean
peninsula.
> No. You should really stick with what I say rather than what you want
> me to have said.
Then, what do you think the United States should do? Trust diplomacy?
Stay in South Korea while North Korea increasingly arms against
rising a backdrop of rising anti-american sentiment in Asia.
> Except the wishes of the South Korean government, elected by the South
> Korean people, seem somewhat at odds with your claim above. So who do
> we listen to, the wishes of the majority if the South Korean people as
> embodied by their elected government or the wishes of some section of
> the South Korean people who are particularly vocal?
The head of South Korea ran on an anti-american message...
> No.
Yes we are. We are violating the right of the South Koreans to have
an American free peninsula. They don't think they need us, which
might be the same as a little kid saying he doesn't need gloves to
throw snowballs, but, the bottom line is that it is their right.
> Which is precisely what is the end result of our presence in South
> Korea, interestingly enough.
Up until now. The situation has changed, though.
> And I think you and your opinion are both bullshit. Back under the
> bridge, son....
You have no alternatives. I've outlined two. a Raid on North Korea
(commando style), versus a total withdrawal from South Korea. The
latter seems more attractive. Asia sees American presence as a
problem more than a help.
Nigel Gale
Anonymous wrote:
> But unlike the UK, we have no interest in extending our borders, and become
> another failed Empire,
It's a bit daft to assert the UK is still interested in extending our borders.
In the last couple of decades, we've given up Hong Kong and Belize.
Scotland and Northern Ireland have acquired their own (albeit limited)
Parliaments, and Wales a (more limited) regional assembly. The Government is also
trying to cede Gibraltar to Spain.
All nations should be so imperialistic.
The only way we're extending our borders is by becoming part of the European
Union.
>subsisting [on] dreams of the Glory that was,
We certainly derive pleasure from our imperial past, that's only human. But we've
started to face the more unsavoury aspects of our past - Bloody Sunday, periods
of misrule in India, air-raids on civilians in Iraq in the 1930s have all been
subjects of dramas, documentaries and satire shows on mainstream television in
the recent past. It's healthy to examine one's country's dark side - a good
preventative measure against blind patriotism.
>and dancing to the tune of Georgie's Bush fiddle.
I prefer to think of Tony Blair as doing a good job keeping the enraged, escaped
madman from hurting himself or others. :-P
N.
Howard Berkowitz
<nos...@baesystems.com> wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > But unlike the UK, we have no interest in extending our borders, and
> > become
> > another failed Empire,
>
> It's a bit daft to assert the UK is still interested in extending our
> borders.
> In the last couple of decades, we've given up Hong Kong and Belize.
> Scotland and Northern Ireland have acquired their own (albeit limited)
> Parliaments, and Wales a (more limited) regional assembly. The Government
> is also
> trying to cede Gibraltar to Spain.
I _still_ think your government didn't think creatively enough when you
failed to say to China, "Welcome to Hong Kong. But Northern Ireland
comes with it. Package deal."
:-)
Duke of URL
> Anonymous wrote:
>
>> But unlike the UK, we have no interest in extending our borders, and
>> become another failed Empire,
>
> It's a bit daft to assert the UK is still interested in extending our
> borders. In the last couple of decades, we've given up Hong Kong and
> Belize. Scotland and Northern Ireland have acquired their own (albeit
> limited) Parliaments, and Wales a (more limited) regional assembly.
> The Government is also trying to cede Gibraltar to Spain.
>
> All nations should be so imperialistic.
>
> The only way we're extending our borders is by becoming part of the
> European Union.
And the way the only three other significant countries in the EU have their
economies going into the tank,
you Brits might end up running it all!