Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

[FreshFish]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

There is something about war by drone and/or war by robot that unsettles me. One of the deterrents to war is its horror. When you take away the stench by killing the bad guys from thousands of miles away, it becomes a video game and less horrific and easier to do.

Killing should be the last resort of the nation-state. Making it easy and antiseptic to one side is wrong.

This post reminds me of a classic Star Trek episode. Two planets were "at war" and when one of them "attacked" the other with a "missile," grids would light up on a computer screen and people who lived in those areas lined up to go into an extermination chamber. Yes, because "real" war was so messy, they turned it into a game of Battleship instead, except that real people died, voluntarily, so that the antiseptic version could continue.

Of course Kirk and crew disrupted the scheme and the planets had to make real peace with each other.

There are two critiques of this US war-by-drone strategy that I've heard that make me stop and think a bit:
> we are killing these people "merely" so we don't have to take them prisoner; then we can side-step all the issues about what kiind of legal status they should have as prisoners.
> by killing them instead of capturing them, we lose out on the opportunity to interrogate them and develop better intelligence on how to stop prospective attacks.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

This post reminds me of a classic Star Trek episode. Two planets were "at war" and when one of them "attacked" the other with a "missile," grids would light up on a computer screen and people who lived in those areas lined up to go into an extermination chamber. Yes, because "real" war was so messy, they turned it into a game of Battleship instead, except that real people died, voluntarily, so that the antiseptic version could continue.

Of course Kirk and crew disrupted the scheme and the planets had to make real peace with each other.

I thought of the same episode. The Prime Directive really takes it in the ass that episode.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

This post reminds me of a classic Star Trek episode. Two planets were "at war" and when one of them "attacked" the other with a "missile," grids would light up on a computer screen and people who lived in those areas lined up to go into an extermination chamber. Yes, because "real" war was so messy, they turned it into a game of Battleship instead, except that real people died, voluntarily, so that the antiseptic version could continue.

Of course Kirk and crew disrupted the scheme and the planets had to make real peace with each other.

There are two critiques of this US war-by-drone strategy that I've heard that make me stop and think a bit:
> we are killing these people "merely" so we don't have to take them prisoner; then we can side-step all the issues about what kiind of legal status they should have as prisoners.
> by killing them instead of capturing them, we lose out on the opportunity to interrogate them and develop better intelligence on how to stop prospective attacks.

I'm much more worried about your second critique than the first. I little waterboarding could provide quite a bit of information, we wouldn't want to waste that opportunity.

 

[MattS]

I like that book.

The first third of Starship Troopers is good (the "self-teaching" part); then it goes to StupidTown.

Edit: big brain fart, I was thinking of Battlefield Earth! I've never read Starship Troopers.

You should read it. It's well worth the time.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

You should read it. It's well worth the time.

I actually don't know how I missed it. Between 15 and 18 I swear I read every scifi novel written between 1950 and 1970.

 

[joecct]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

This post reminds me of a classic Star Trek episode. Two planets were "at war" and when one of them "attacked" the other with a "missile," grids would light up on a computer screen and people who lived in those areas lined up to go into an extermination chamber. Yes, because "real" war was so messy, they turned it into a game of Battleship instead, except that real people died, voluntarily, so that the antiseptic version could continue.

Of course Kirk and crew disrupted the scheme and the planets had to make real peace with each other.

There are two critiques of this US war-by-drone strategy that I've heard that make me stop and think a bit:
> we are killing these people "merely" so we don't have to take them prisoner; then we can side-step all the issues about what kiind of legal status they should have as prisoners.
> by killing them instead of capturing them, we lose out on the opportunity to interrogate them and develop better intelligence on how to stop prospective attacks.

I've always wondered if we could use "Court Martial" to argue against speed cameras.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

I've always wondered if we could use "Court Martial" to argue against speed cameras.

I speak of rights! A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine! Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us! I ask that my motion be granted. And more than that, gentlemen - in the name of a humanity fading in the shadow of the machine - I demand it. I demand it!

 

[bronconick]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Syrians shot down a Turkish F-4, Turkey is asking NATO to invoke Article 4.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/24/world/meast/turkey-syria-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Two interesting things. The plane was brought down by flak. That has only a 2-3 mile range, IIRC. That means you're really not where you're supposed to be.

Second, the BBC's graphic on the plane's alleged flight looks like they were basically leaving it out there as bait to be shot at.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18568412

Basically looks like an excuse to execute a run-around on the Russians in the Security Council by making it a NATO issue.

 

[joecct]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Syrians shot down a Turkish F-4, Turkey is asking NATO to invoke Article 4.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/24/world/meast/turkey-syria-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Two interesting things. The plane was brought down by flak. That has only a 2-3 mile range, IIRC. That means you're really not where you're supposed to be.

Second, the BBC's graphic on the plane's alleged flight looks like they were basically leaving it out there as bait to be shot at.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18568412

Basically looks like an excuse to execute a run-around on the Russians in the Security Council by making it a NATO issue.

May have been bait, but from the graphic it appears the F-4 never crossed into Syrian air space. It could have been an electronic intelligence gathering mission for all we know.

 

[joecct]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

And one more thing before going to bed...

If the Washington Post wrote it, it has to be true?? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...stan/2012/06/24/gJQAbQMB0V_story.html?hpid=z4

 

[Priceless]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

And one more thing before going to bed...

If the Washington Post wrote it, it has to be true?? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...stan/2012/06/24/gJQAbQMB0V_story.html?hpid=z4

If the president had even gone for a peace deal with the Taliban - much less gotten one - we would be hearing how he had forsaken our troops and "surrendered" to the enemy. Hell, just for renewing a treaty with the Russians we've had since Nixon's days he's been called a traitor. He'd probably be facing Articles of Impeachment instead of reelection.

 

[joecct]

If the president had even gone for a peace deal with the Taliban - much less gotten one - we would be hearing how he had forsaken our troops and "surrendered" to the enemy. Hell, just for renewing a treaty with the Russians we've had since Nixon's days he's been called a traitor. He'd probably be facing Articles of Impeachment instead of reelection.

Nixon treated with North Vietnam. And the Congress then turned its back on South Vietnam. Nobody went into early retirement because of that.

The Panama Canal on the other hand....

 

[Priceless]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Nixon treated with North Vietnam. And the Congress then turned its back on South Vietnam. Nobody went into early retirement because of that.

This isn't the 1970's.

We'd have an ad that shows Obama piloting the plane into tower two at the WTC.

 

[joecct]

This isn't the 1970's.

We'd have an ad that shows Obama piloting the plane into tower two at the WTC.

That would be 1964.

 

[geezer]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

A fascinating story about the state of the union.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

A fascinating story about the state of the union.

Who says the America dream is dead?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

That would be 1964.

The Congress turned its back on South Vietnam in 1964? I guess what happened for the next 10 years was just a mirage.

I assumed you were talking about the Paris Peace Talks (where Nixon found his "peace with honor" in 1973) and the Congress turned its back on South Vietnam, leading to the collapse of the country in 1975...

In any event, Obama would be branded a traitor and be facing Articles of Impeachment from the GOP House for even suggesting that we could make a deal with the Taliban.

 

[joecct]

The Congress turned its back on South Vietnam in 1964? I guess what happened for the next 10 years was just a mirage.

I assumed you were talking about the Paris Peace Talks (where Nixon found his "peace with honor" in 1973) and the Congress turnedh its back on South Vietnam, leading to the collapse of the country in 1975...

In any event, Obama would be branded a traitor and be facing Articles of Impeachment from the GOP House for even suggesting that we could make a deal with the Taliban.

I was talking about over the top ads now vs. the 1964 election.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

An extraordinary moment in the history of the battle of civilization against terrorism, a day many thought could never ever possibly come:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/history_unfolds_queen_ex_ira_chief_7BGS68eTXJ6WFp0rjQPwiP


Queen Elizabeth even wore green for the occasion!




nearly 11 years after 9/11, the war against so-called islamist terror is still being thickly contested, with the outcome very much in doubt. Yet in that same period of time, perhaps revolted by what they saw that day, who knows?? the IRA has totally and completely renounced terrorism. Who ever would have expected an IRA leader in Northern Ireland to acknowledge Elizabeth as his sovereign???


this is historic. sometimes symbolism really does matter a very great deal.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

A little progress every day.