NationStates Jolt Archive

First I heard of that but if true then those people are just as disgusting.


The only protests at funerals that I found reference to were by a group that states that the deaths are due to God punishing America for tolerating homosexuality. Therefore I find it hard to see why it could be such a suprise to you. Perhaps I'm just not typing the right criteria however. Could you please refer or link to some news stories concerning peace protestors picketing the funeral of a dead soldier due to the Iraq war?

When it comes to military issues, you do have a certain dronish quality. You've admitted so yourself.

When have I been known for blowing smoke up your arse because you're such a "hero," Eut? :p
I admitted to being a "drone?" :eek:

Son, you don't "blow smoke" up anyone's ass! Actually, that probably should have said "sunshine," but I won't quibble. :D

There are some places where the military decided to make a coup.

Spain.
Greece.
South American states.
African states.
Japan almost had a coup back in WWII

the list could go on, but I won't bother.
I see. Thank you for clarifying what you meant.

But I don't think the U.S. military has attempted a coup. I think only in nations where the government is much weaker than the military and the military's headed by a psycho that a coup will be attempted.

:p I do hope you realize this is why I oppose soldiers :p if they were trained to actually defend people, my opinion might be very different.

Hence why I have nothing against medics who do not carry guns or non-combat personnel.

But if they are not trained to kill how will they stop others trained to kill from hurting you

The only protests at funerals that I found reference to were by a group that states that the deaths are due to God punishing America for tolerating homosexuality. Therefore I find it hard to see why it could be such a suprise to you. Perhaps I'm just not typing the right criteria however. Could you please refer or link to some news stories concerning peace protestors picketing the funeral of a dead soldier due to the Iraq war?
The people who protest at funerals because they want gays dead are disgusting and wrong, yes. But I don't think the media's going to attack the peace movement, either.

9/11 was a terrorist attack performed by a group with violent means (i.e. soldiers basically). It killed about 4000 people, most of them from the US, Canada and western Europe.

It was an act of war by a group of terrorists who want to destroy our way of life and impose their way of life on us.

How do you know they haven't tried to attack again and just been stopped? You don't. They'll keep trying, and they'll hit you again eventually. Carpet-bombing won't stop them - raw power never will.
But just giving up doesn't help either.

Nor do negotiations.

Nor do small scale attacks.

The best thing is to at least make them give credit where credit is due.

Some gays are rapists. Your pont?
That soldiers aren't all amazing wonderful brave honourable people. Just like everyone else oddly enough.

I admitted to being a "drone?" :eek:

You've been quite forthcoming in that you are remiss when it comes to criticising the military.

Son, you don't "blow smoke" up anyone's ass! Actually, that probably should have said "sunshine," but I won't quibble. :D

Funny, I thought all you did was quibble.

The camaradarie formed in military life is obviously different from that formed in other walks of life. What does that have to do with anything? Military funerals shouldn't be allowed to be protested because solidiers form a fairly unique camradarie? That's a weak reason at best.
You've apparently lost the thread in that particular side issue. The original post about the closeness of those who have served was in response to an allegation that there was no differenct, not that protesting at military funerals was any better or worse than protesting at any other funerals. The original post for this thread dealt with protests at military funerals, not all funerals.That came up later.

It was an act of war by a group of terrorists who want to destroy our way of life and impose their way of life on us.
Precisely.

Oil, and fish, and gangbanging. God bless those brave men!
ROFLMFAO!!! :D

It was an act of war by a group of terrorists who want to destroy our way of life and impose their way of life on us.

And that's why all those other people had to die, the ones that had nothing to do with it.

... the US military has killed 30k civilians+ in Iraq over the past two-three years.
Bullshit.

Reeeealy?? OMG! Oh noes! :rolleyes:

In the Air Force I was trained to: 1. Fix airplanes. 2. Kill. In 26 years of service, not counting the firing range, I only had to carr a weapon one time. In fact, most people who are serving in the military are trained to do something other than kill as their primary job. But then most civilians don't understand that do they Eut? They also don't understand that those whose primary job is combat have very strict rules to follow and the reason they kill is to prevent the other person from killing them or their buddies.

But you do understand that you seeing your soldiers as a force of "good" and theirs a force of "evil" is quite arbitrary? And we haven't even gone into ICC jurisdiction territory, yet.
No.

"ICC?"

A person claimed they knew their co-workers as well as the military knows their co-workers, which is not true.

As far as funerals go, no person deserves to have any protest at thier funeral. You might not like the person or what the person did, but protesting in front of a grieving family is just plain wrong.
My point exactly. You sure we're not related? :D

In the Air Force I was trained to: 1. Fix airplanes. 2. Kill. In 26 years of service, not counting the firing range, I only had to carr a weapon one time. In fact, most people who are serving in the military are trained to do something other than kill as their primary job.


Me i fired a gun once in my career and it was a floating bouy in the middle of the ocean

If your government tells you to do something that you disagree with, such as genocide, would you or would you not do it?

What time era are you talking in?

No.

You do not see the arbitrariness in seeing the US soldier as the good guy, and, say the Iranian one as the bad guy? Why should we non-USians not?

"ICC?"

International Criminal Court - the one that has the US so spooked with the prospect of its soldiers actually being held accountable for crimes against humanity.

My point exactly. You sure we're not related? :D

We are brother.

'Recognised'? It doesn't matter if it was officially recognised as a warcrime. It's still a warcrime whether or not there's a nice legal meaning in a rulebook somewhere. Piling people into gas chambers and shooting them en masse is still a crime, recognised or not.

Actually back then it wasn't a warcrime. it only became a warcrime after World War II.

Me i fired a gun once in my career and it was a floating bouy in the middle of the ocean

Why? Out of curiousity, did you hit it?

Actually back then it wasn't a warcrime. it only became a warcrime after World War II.

Meaning it wasn't wrong?

Why not for a funeral service for a fireman or a doctor then?

They are already escorted by those same people but yea, I'll support an escort by these people as well.

Why? Out of curiousity, did you hit it?
Missied but never handled a 50 cal mounted machine gun before. I was just in the navy i trained t paint the boat drive the boat and resupply the boat.

It's a shitty thing to do, but they are well within their rights.

Well, in Oklahoma it will soon be illegal for anyone to do that. Then I guess the Supreme Court will have to decide if it is "protected speech" or not.

Eutrusca isn't there a rules of Engagement list? If there is could you post it if you have a copy on your computer?
Rules of engagement are mission-specific.

Some of my best friends were in the military if you trust some one with your life you are friends for life
:)

The only protests at funerals that I found reference to were by a group that states that the deaths are due to God punishing America for tolerating homosexuality. Therefore I find it hard to see why it could be such a suprise to you. Perhaps I'm just not typing the right criteria however. Could you please refer or link to some news stories concerning peace protestors picketing the funeral of a dead soldier due to the Iraq war?

I don't care who is protesting at a funeral, they shouldn't be allowed to protest at funerals.

That soldiers aren't all amazing wonderful brave honourable people. Just like everyone else oddly enough.
True. Never stated otherwise.

No.

"ICC?"

International Criminal court. A court that isn't recognized by the US and rightfully so.

1. You've been quite forthcoming in that you are remiss when it comes to criticising the military.

Funny, I thought all you did was quibble.
1. I do criticise the US military, just not on here. ;)

2. Moi?? Sacre blu! :p

International Criminal Court - the one that has the US so spooked with the prospect of its soldiers actually being held accountable for crimes against humanity.

We aren't spooked by it all Fass. We punish our own people who violate international law.

Meaning it wasn't wrong?

Under the law at the time, no it wasn't. Today it is though. That is why I was asking the question to Sd on what time period he wanted.

Under the law at the time, no it wasn't. Today it is though. That is why I was asking the question to Sd on what time period he wanted.
Of course it was wrong. It just wasn't illegal.

And that's why all those other people had to die, the ones that had nothing to do with it.

As has been pointed out numerous times before: It is an unfortunate fact that in a war some innocent civilians will die. It is also unavoidable, however the US and allied forces in combat zones do everything they can possibly do to keep those civilian deaths to a minimum.

Meaning it wasn't wrong?

'Wrong' and 'illegal' are not synonymous, just as 'right' and 'legal' are not.

... most people who are serving in the military are trained to do something other than kill as their primary job. But then most civilians don't understand that do they Eut? They also don't understand that those whose primary job is combat have very strict rules to follow and the reason they kill is to prevent the other person from killing them or their buddies.
Usually, yes. The point has been made on here, repeatedly, that military personnel are prone to all the same ills to which people in general are prone ( using a very generous paraphrase ). Yet when it comes to mistakes being made by military personnel in a combat zone, the same people who say that "soldiers are no better than anyone else," tend to respond as if they should be perfect. As I have said before, you would think that many on the left ( and right, for that matter ) would have implosion of the brain based on sheer cognitive dissonance alone.

... keep those civilian deaths to a minimum.

Minimum, in this case, being many thousands more than those of soldiers.

Of course it was wrong. It just wasn't illegal.

Meaning you can't disobey the order since back then it was a legal order. Hence why I was asking what time period the poster wanted.

You do not see the arbitrariness in seeing the US soldier as the good guy, and, say the Iranian one as the bad guy? Why should we non-USians not?

International Criminal Court - the one that has the US so spooked with the prospect of its soldiers actually being held accountable for crimes against humanity.
No, I do not see the "arbitrariness" in seeing the military personnel of a democracy which has been attacked as "the good guys," as opposed to the military personnel of a corrpt, demented dictatorship as "the bad guys."

The International Criminal Court did such a great job over the years with people like Saddam Hussein that I can't imagine why America would object. :rolleyes:

We are brother.
:)

Just back for a minute here.

Well, I thought the service they performed in WW I and WW II benefited a hell of a lot of people. Just as the services they perform today beneit people, like those in south Louisiana, Missippi, and Alabama. :eek:

Just ignore the fact that Nazi Germany had soldiers too, why don't you.

I see. Thank you for clarifying what you meant.

But I don't think the U.S. military has attempted a coup. I think only in nations where the government is much weaker than the military and the military's headed by a psycho that a coup will be attempted.

See huge US military expenditure.

But just giving up doesn't help either.

Nor do negotiations.

Nor do small scale attacks.

The best thing is to at least make them give credit where credit is due.

Negotations have helped, as have small scale attacks.

What hasn't helped is giving up or large scale attacks.

As has been pointed out numerous times before: It is an unfortunate fact that in a war some innocent civilians will die. It is also unavoidable, however the US and allied forces in combat zones do everything they can possibly do to keep those civilian deaths to a minimum.

And of course, they couldn't have Not gone in there.

Usually, yes. The point has been made on here, repeatedly, that military personnel are prone to all the same ills to which people in general are prone ( using a very generous paraphrase ). Yet when it comes to mistakes being made by military personnel in a combat zone, the same people who say that "soldiers are no better than anyone else," tend to respond as if they should be perfect. As I have said before, you would think that many on the left ( and right, for that matter ) would have implosion of the brain based on sheer cognitive dissonance alone.

And due to the very imperfection of humanity, I will never support a soldier, because you, as you admit yourself, will never do a perfect job in a combat situation.


...annnd I'm gone again.

(btw: the person who picks up a gun =/= brave person, brave person = he who is willing to put down his weapons in face of danger, now That's brave).

The International Criminal Court did such a great job over the years with people like Saddam Hussein that I can't imagine why America would object.
The ICC was founded in 2002.

The International Criminal Court did such a great job over the years with people like Saddam Hussein that I can't imagine why America would object. :rolleyes:
Well Put

Meaning you can't disobey the order since back then it was a legal order. Hence why I was asking what time period the poster wanted.

Assume it was in a time frame where it was a legal order, would you follow an order that demanded that you commit genocide?

We aren't spooked by it all Fass. We punish our own people who violate international law.

Then your refusal to be part of the court's jurisdiction is nonsensical (not to mention futile, since its jurisdiction is based on the approval of the country where the war is fought, not of the combatants' country of origin). The Court can only investigate and prosecute if a state is unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute (proceedings which are merely intended to shield persons from criminal responsibility will not render a case inadmissible). If the US does indeed prosecute its war criminals, then it has nothing to worry about. The thing is, though, that it does have something to worry about, because it does fail to prosecute, and its government knows it.

Well, in Oklahoma it will soon be illegal for anyone to do that. Then I guess the Supreme Court will have to decide if it is "protected speech" or not.
That should be highly interesting and very informative.

No, I do not see the "arbitrariness" in seeing the military personnel of a democracy which has been attacked as "the good guys," as opposed to the military personnel of a corrpt, demented dictatorship as "the bad guys."

Iran attacked the US? The US is noble? Hah!

The International Criminal Court did such a great job over the years with people like Saddam Hussein that I can't imagine why America would object. :rolleyes:

The ICC was founded in 2002, and its jurisdiction does not encompass crimes comitted before its statute came into force, namely 1 July 2002. Are you really this ignorant of it?

(btw: the person who picks up a gun =/= brave person, brave person = he who is willing to put down his weapons in face of danger, now That's brave).
And is usually the dead person

Assume it was in a time frame where it was a legal order, would you follow an order that demanded that you commit genocide?

If I didn't, I would be cashiered right out of the military so back when it was legal, yes since no one would know any better. Not even the politicians would know any better either and would've thought nothing of it at the time. Even soldiers back then thought nothing of it when it was occuring.

A last qoute before i leave.


In a perfect world military would be unnessecery.

We however live in an imperfect world and Soldiers are nessecery to keep those that would harm us at bay.

If I didn't, I would be cashiered right out of the military so back when it was legal, yes since no one would know any better. Not even the politicians would know any better either and would've thought nothing of it at the time. Even soldiers back then thought nothing of it when it was occuring.

Then, how do you explain the Nürnberg trials? "I didn't know better, I was follwing orders" was not an excuse for the Nazis - why should it be to you?

Then your refusal to be part of the court's jurisdiction is nonsensical (not to mention futile, since its jurisdiction is based on the approval of the country where the war is fought, not of the combatants' country of origin).

Actually the court doesn't have any jurisdiction whatsoever unless the said nation's people don't prosecute the offender. Then and only then do they have jurisdiction.

The Court can only investigate and prosecute if a state is unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute (proceedings which are merely intended to shield persons from criminal responsibility will not render a case inadmissible).

Correct. So why should we be part of the court when we do this anyway?

If the US does indeed prosecute its war criminals, then it has nothing to worry about. The thing is, though, that it does have something to worry about, because it does fail to prosecute, and its government knows it.

No we do not fail to prosecute. We have this thing called due process and we collect evidence to see if a person is guilty or not. If there is no evidence, the case gets dropped and if there is evidence, it is presented in a J.A.G. Court where the tribunal listens to the trial, witnesses, and the evidence to decide guilt or innocence. That is how we do things Fass. We charge, investigate, and prosecute the offenders. Innocent until proven guilty goes even for the military.

Then, how do you explain the Nürnberg trials? "I didn't know better, I was follwing orders" was not an excuse for the Nazis - why should it be to you?

Fass did you pay attention to anything I have been saying?

Once again: IT DEPENDS ON THE TIME FRAME WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

(btw: the person who picks up a gun =/= brave person, brave person = he who is willing to put down his weapons in face of danger, now That's brave).

The person who puts down his gun in the face of grave danger = dead in war.

The person who puts down his gun in the face of grave danger = dead in war.
Common sense dictates never bring fists to a gun fight.

... the person who picks up a gun =/= brave person, brave person = he who is willing to put down his weapons in face of danger, now That's brave).
No, that's stupid.

Actually the court doesn't have any jurisdiction whatsoever unless the said nation's people don't prosecute the offender. Then and only then do they have jurisdiction.

Still rendering US non-compliance futile, seeing as such a large part of the world is subject to it. The country in question failing to prosecute is exactly why we have the court.

Correct. So why should we be part of the court when we do this anyway?

Oh, to show that you are actually serious when you talk about "doing it anyway," and that you've nothing to hide.

No we do not fail to prosecute. We have this thing called due process and we collect evidence to see if a person is guilty or not. If there is no evidence, the case gets dropped and if there is evidence, it is presented in a J.A.G. Court where the tribunal listens to the trial, witnesses, and the evidence to decide guilt or innocence. That is how we do things Fass. We charge, investigate, and prosecute the offenders. Innocent until proven guilty goes even for the military.

Then, if you do all those things, why the non-compliance? The most apparent answer, and the the truth is: because you do not do all those things. Because you do indeed let people off the hook, either through non-prosecution (for instance in Abu Ghraib of anyone higher up in the chain of command), or through lenience as a show for galleries (again, see Abu Ghraib, or those nice CIA torture camps.)

The ICC was founded in 2002, and its jurisdiction does not encompass crimes comitted before its statute came into force, namely 1 July 2002. Are you really this ignorant of it?
I realize that English isn't your first language, but you do understand the word "like" ( meaning in this case, "people such as or similar to" ), yes?

Dude, that's Switzerland! We do beer and cars... well, and tanks and U-Boats, for that matter.


Wir zerquetschen Sie mit unseren Behältern und Schokolade!

--Und unsere enormen tankards des Bieres.

Still rendering US non-compliance futile, seeing as such a large part of the world is subject to it. The country in question failing to prosecute is exactly why we have the court.

And since we prosecute our own, there is no need for the US to be apart of this court. Period.

Oh, to show that you are actually serious when you talk about "doing it anyway," and that you've nothing to hide.

We do prosecute our own. Because we do, we do not need to be a part of this court.

Then, if you do all those things, why the non-compliance? The most apparent answer, and the the truth is: because you do not do all those things. Because you do indeed let people off the hook, either through non-prosecution (for instance in Abu Ghraib of anyone higher up in the chain of command), or through lenience as a show for galleries (again, see Abu Ghraib, or those nice CIA torture camps.)

And we prosecuted those responsible of Abu Ghraib so you can't hang that on us. We prosecuted those that broke the law. As for the the CIA camps, prove that torture is going on.

...SNIP...If the US does indeed prosecute its war criminals, then it has nothing to worry about. The thing is, though, that it does have something to worry about, because it does fail to prosecute, and its government knows it.

Please name one US citizen who has committed war crimes and has not been prosecuted by the US government. Oh, and please don't give me that GW, DC, RR etc. garbage.

I thought soldiers are the reason why you even have a nation to live in where you can say what you are saying.


That is funny as hell, you think the military is the source of all our freedoms. John Locke and other enlightenment philosophers are where the idea of personal freedoms come from. I would like you to explain how a bunch of idiots in uniforms who kill poor people on the other side of the planet make us more free.

Fass did you pay attention to anything I have been saying? Once again: IT DEPENDS ON THE TIME FRAME WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

But you said that the war crimes became crimes after WWII. How could we then prosecute the Nazis? You do understand that laws in line with due process are not retroactive? If you're going to shirk the issue by saying "if it's not a crime when I am to do it, I'll do it," in order to try to conceal the fact that legality has little to do with whether it is wrong or not (and you deserve all the contempt in the world if you judge only through law things you do and would kill a child if ordered if there were no law against it) why then did the Nazis not get off?

Please name one US citizen who has committed war crimes and has not been prosecuted by the US government. Oh, and please don't give me that GW, DC, RR etc. garbage.
Well, I will anyway. Rumsfeld said he bore full responsibility for Abu Ghraib. He has borne zero legal responsibility for it. If he himself admits himself at fault, why no prosecution?

Iran attacked the US? The US is noble? Hah!



The ICC was founded in 2002, and its jurisdiction does not encompass crimes comitted before its statute came into force, namely 1 July 2002. Are you really this ignorant of it?

And we have not attacked Iran nor are we at war with them, so what is your point?

Well, I will anyway. Rumsfeld said he bore full responsibility for Abu Ghraib. He has borne zero legal responsibility for it. If he himself admits himself at fault, why no prosecution?

However, he didn't commit any crimes at Abu Ghraib so he cannot be charged

But you said that the war crimes became crimes after WWII. How could we then prosecute the Nazis? You do understand that laws in line with due process are not retroactive? If you're going to shirk the issue by saying "if it's not a crime when I am to do it, I'll do it," in order to try to conceal the fact that legality has little to do with whether it is wrong or not (and you deserve all the contempt in the world if you judge only through law things you do and would kill a child if ordered if there were no law against it) why then did the Nazis not get off?

Because what they saw at the Nazi Prison camps abhorred them so much that they took it upon themselves to prosecute it as a warcrime.

So, the question now arises - will the Patriot guard turn up at gay funerals being picketed by the "Westboro baptists"? Or just military ones....

On related matters that have arisen

International Criminal court. A court that isn't recognized by the US and rightfully so.

Why is it right not to recognise an international body to bring criminals to justice, particularily when the US often laments the "uselessness" of the UN?


We punish our own people who violate international law..

...who violate the International laws the US chooses to obey perhaps....


The International Criminal Court did such a great job over the years with people like Saddam Hussein that I can't imagine why America would object..

Because it would be faced with the embarrasment that would come when it or its allies fall foul of it. Thats why its campaigning amongst the poorer nations against it, trying to get them to give the US an examption.

And since we prosecute our own, there is no need for the US to be apart of this court. Period.

No, it is because you do not prosecute that you are not part of the court. You were all for it, and then suddenly all against, claiming to fear "politics." What you fear is your failure to prosecute.

We do prosecute our own. Because we do, we do not need to be a part of this court.

As stated previously: the failure to prosecute is why you are not part of the court, and why you are trying to bully third world nations into not turning over your soldiers to a place where they will face justice.

And we prosecuted those responsible of Abu Ghraib so you can't hang that on us.

You didn't prosecute those responsible - you prosecuted the peons that were on pictures and which you had to prosecute because it was so apparent what they did. The people truly responsible, those higher up, got off without any sort of trouble.

We prosecuted those that broke the law. As for the the CIA camps, prove that torture is going on.

If there was no torture going on, your governent would not be fighting so desperatly to be able to use torture, just as it would not be fighting so desperately to avoid ICC jurisdiction if it did indeed punish its war criminals.

So, the question now arises - will the Patriot guard turn up at gay funerals being picketed by the "Westboro baptists"? Or just military ones....

On related matters that have arisen

You'll have to ask them.

Why is it right not to recognise an international body to bring criminals to justice, particularily when the US often laments the "uselessness" of the UN?

Because it isn't a court that is mandated by the United Nations Charter.

...who violate the International laws the US chooses to obey perhaps....

We prosecute our own people who violate international law.

Because it would be faced with the embarrasment that would come when it or its allies fall foul of it. Thats why its campaigning amongst the poorer nations against it, trying to get them to give the US an examption.

When we already are exempted from it because of what it states within the treaty framework. We prosecute our own people.

Well, it's from the Moonie Times, so I'm not surprised that if they're talking about Phelps that they didn't mention it, not if there's a chance to subtly slam the anti-war crowd in the process.

It doesn't matter what you are protesting a funeral is no time to protest

*snip*

Fass, I suggest you go back and look at the ICC framework. We prosecute our own people. Since we do prosecute our own people, the ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States military personel whatsoever. That is stated by the treaty.

What part of that, is not getting through?

Because what they saw at the Nazi Prison camps abhorred them so much that they took it upon themselves to prosecute it as a warcrime.

Germany was the prosecuting party? And how could they prosecute when you claim what they did was legal? And how do you get away from the fact that he who commits atrocities as long as they are legal is scum?

And we have not attacked Iran nor are we at war with them, so what is your point?

Funny someone was saying something about not having read the context...

Germany was the prosecuting party? And how could they prosecute when you claim what they did was legal? And how do you get away from the fact that he who commits atrocities as long as they are legal is scum?

The allies were. Germany lost the war. If Germany had won it, the allied commanders would've been up on warcrime trials.

Fass, I suggest you go back and look at the ICC framework. We prosecute our own people. Since we do prosecute our own people, the ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States military personel whatsoever. That is stated by the treaty.

What part of that, is not getting through?

You are tryng to insinuate that because you prosecute, it has no jurisdiction, which is patently false. It has no jurisdiction because you have not approved jurisdiction. Not because you prosecuted and the Court found it had none. You were too chicken to submit yourself to supervision, to prove your claims as to being so fond of respecting human rights.

You are tryng to insinuate that because you prosecute, it has no jurisdiction, which is patently false. It has no jurisdiction because you have not approved jurisdiction. Not because you prosecuted and the Court found it had none.

Actually it isn't false. Under the ICC, it only has jurisdiction if the a nation is not willing to prosecute their own people. Since we are willing to prosecute our own people, AND HAVE, the ICC wouldn't have jurisdiction over us to begin with.

The allies were. Germany lost the war. If Germany had won it, the allied commanders would've been up on warcrime trials.

But you were just claiming you'd get off if what you did was legal. They did not get off when what they did was legal, as per your claim that there were no war crimes laws before WWII. How do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance between your claims and what ended up happening?

But you were just claiming you'd get off if what you did was legal.

Yea I would depending on the time frame. World War II probably no I wouldn't have and I know I wouldn't today and would be obligated to disobey such an order today.

They did not get off when what they did was legal, as per your claim that there were no war crimes laws before WWII.

Correct they didn't. Times changed during World War II.

How do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance between your claims and what ended up happening?

I go back to all the time periods throughout history. Genocide was legal up to World War II.

Actually it isn't false. Under the ICC, it only has jurisdiction if the a nation is not willing to prosecute their own people. Since we are willing to prosecute our own people, AND HAVE, the ICC wouldn't have jurisdiction over us to begin with.

But that's not the reason it doesn't have jurisdiction. The reason it doesn't have jurisdiction is because you're afraid of supervision, of having to prove your claims that you do see to it that justice is done, because you know you will not live up to them. You may claim that it would have no jurisdiction, but you've run with your tail between your legs, instead begging and bribing and threatening third world nations not to submit US nationals to the court. There is quite the contrast between the claim "we prosecute" and then seeing you try so diligently to avoid a jurisdiction you claim would not exist anyway because you prosecute.

But that's not the reason it doesn't have jurisdiction. The reason it doesn't have jurisdiction is because you're afraid of supervision, of having to prove your claims that you do see to it that justice is done, because you know you will not live up to them. You may claim that it would have no jurisdiction, but you've run with your tail between your legs, instead begging and bribing and threatening third world nations not to submit US nationals to the court. There is quite the contrast between the claim "we prosecute" and then seeing you try so diligently to avoid a jurisdiction you claim would not exist anyway because you prosecute.

GAH!!! Your not listening whatsoever.

America do prosecute, yes. Well, once they get publically caught out, anyway.

But do they punish? Remind me again, what were the punishments for the caught-red-handed torturers at Abu Ghraib?

America do prosecute, yes. Well, once they get publically caught out, anyway.

I bet we prosecute without anyone knowing about it. JAG is really a closed door thing for the media unless it is a high profile situation like Abu Ghraib.

But do they punish? Remind me again, what were the punishments for the caught-red-handed torturers at Abu Ghraib?

brig time with a demotion to private and a dishonorable discharge upon completing their jail terms.

America do prosecute, yes. Well, once they get publically caught out, anyway.

But do they punish? Remind me again, what were the punishments for the caught-red-handed torturers at Abu Ghraib?

They went to jail.

Yea I would depending on the time frame. World War II probably no I wouldn't have and I know I wouldn't today and would be obligated to disobey such an order today.

So the only thing stopping you is a law?

Correct they didn't. Times changed during World War II.

So killing civilians all of a sudden became wrong? And you would be of no fault for having done it previously? You would not have been scum for obeying such orders?

I go back to all the time periods throughout history. Genocide was legal up to World War II.

Oh, dear. You actually are so ignorant as to think it was. You should look into the Hague Conventions, as well as the Geneva Protocol and Geneva conventions, not to mention numerous other laws dealing with war crimes prior to WWII.

GAH!!! Your not listening whatsoever.

What is there to listen to? Why would you be running around trying to evade a jurisdiction you claim would not exist? Because it would.

So the only thing stopping you is a law?

Yep. I cannot go out and commit genocide today so I would disobey that order if I was in the military and been givin that order. I would have to quote International law as reason why and then send up the chain of command.

So killing civilians all of a sudden became wrong? And you would be of no fault for having done it previously? You would not have been scum for obeying such orders?

In the past no. World War II, more than likely yea I would be scum to some eyes if I followed that order. Today, I would be reviled for intentionally killing off a group of people because I do not like them.

Oh, dear. You actually are so ignorant as to think it was. You should look into the Hague Conventions, as well as the Geneva Protocol and Geneva conventions, not to mention numerous other laws dealing with war crimes prior to WWII.

And now you know why we had the Nazi War Crime trials. I still have to question though why Dornetz was up on charges.

Bullshit.

Even Bush thinks so.

What is there to listen to? Why would you be running around trying to evade a jurisdiction you claim would not exist? Because it would.

I'm not evading any question. I quoted what the treaty said on Jurisdiction. not my fault your not paying any attention to the arguement.

We aren't spooked by it all Fass. We punish our own people who violate international law.

We have a president and an administration who couldn't care less about international law, and say as much.

A few years ago we invaded a country in a blatant violation of international law.

The idea that the US Government could care less about international law is nonsensical.

We have a president and an administration who couldn't care less about international law, and say as much.

And if you can actually prove this then you must be God. However, Bush didn't violate International law.

A few years ago we invaded a country in a blatant violation of international law.

I'm actually tired of argueing why it wasn't a violation of International Law because no one seems to listen.

The idea that the US Government could care less about international law is nonsensical.

:rolleyes:

Yep. I cannot go out and commit genocide today so I would disobey that order if I was in the military and been givin that order. I would have to quote International law as reason why and then send up the chain of command.

So the only thing is stopping you from doing something so heinous is a law?

In the past no. World War II, more than likely yea I would be scum to some eyes if I followed that order. Today, I would be reviled for intentionally killing off a group of people because I do not like them.

So the only thing stopping you is public opinion?

And now you know why we had the Nazi War Crime trials.

Would it have been fun if you had known, too? Because your claims indicate you know very little about the history of the laws of war.

I still have to question though why Dornetz was up on charges.

Dornetz? Are you thinking of Dönitz? Can you try to even get the names right?

I'm not evading any question.

Good, because I wrote nothing about that.

I quoted what the treaty said on Jurisdiction. not my fault your not paying any attention to the arguement.

Your argument is that there would be no jurisdiction even if you had approved jurisdiction. Which is put to lie by your own goverment's diligence in evading it. Why would they try so hard to evade what you claim they would not have had to evade?

I'm actually tired of argueing why it wasn't a violation of International Law because no one seems to listen.

Perhaps because your argument is absurd?

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Dornetz? Are you thinking of Dönitz? Can you try to even get the names right?

Oh so sorry for screwing up a spelling of a German naval officer whose life was spared because of one American Fleet Admiral by the name of Chester Nimitz who used Donitz's sub tactics to defeat the Japanese in the Pacific.

Perhaps because your argument is absurd?

No they are not absurd. The United Nations cannot tell a nation when it can wage war. The Nations themselves decide that.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

Correct. Now name me a power that has followed it.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Been tried numerous times. Some where successful, most weren't. Persian Gulf 1 comes to mind. The 3 Arab/Israeli wars come to mind. The 3 Pakistani/Indi Wars come to mind. As does the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and Uganda's invasion of Kenya as well.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Then why the hell did we let Saddam fester in Iraq for so long when he has threatened the integrity of Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, The United States and our allies?

Oh so sorry for screwing up a spelling of a German naval officer whose life was spared because of one American Fleet Admiral by the name of Chester Nimitz who used Donitz's sub tactics to defeat the Japanese in the Pacific.

Imagine that! You can google after I gave you the proper name.

Imagine that! You can google after I gave you the proper name.

I've studied World War II Fass. I knew precisely who the hell I was talking about.

Then why the hell did we let Saddam fester in Iraq for so long when he has threatened the integrity of Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, The United States and our allies?

He was not a serious threat to the "territorial integrity" or "political independence" of any of those countries, at least not after the Persian Gulf War.

The two countries on that list that supported the Iraq War, the US and Israel, were also the countries least threatened by Hussein.

That is indicative.

Edit: Note that I never argued anywhere that following international law was the traditional policy of any state.

I've studied World War II Fass. I knew precisely who the hell I was talking about.

Sure.

He was not a serious threat to the "territorial integrity" or "political independence" of any of those countries, at least not after the Persian Gulf War.

He constistently threatened the territorial integrity of his neighbors which under the UN Charter he cannot do.

The two countries on that list that supported the Iraq War, the US and Israel, were also the countries least threatened by Hussein.

That is indicative.

Don't matter. He threatened the territorial integrity of both nations. Under the UN Charter he cannot do that. Period. Just like Iran cannot say that Israel should be wiped off the map. That is threatening the territorial integrity of Israel as well as the Political independence of said nation. That is also a violation of the UN Charter.

Edit: Note that I never argued anywhere that following international law was the traditional policy of any state.

So why did you start this arguement?

He constistently threatened the territorial integrity of his neighbors which under the UN Charter he cannot do.

After the Persian Gulf War? No, he did not.

So why did you start this arguement?

Because of your absurd statement that the US government cared about international law. For what it's worth, I do support the International Criminal Court, and I support it being applied to everyone, because no state on the planet cares enough about international law and that needs to be addressed.

He constistently threatened the territorial integrity of his neighbors which under the UN Charter he cannot do.



Don't matter. He threatened the territorial integrity of both nations. Under the UN Charter he cannot do that. Period. Just like Iran cannot say that Israel should be wiped off the map. That is threatening the territorial integrity of Israel as well as the Political independence of said nation. That is also a violation of the UN Charter.



So why did you start this arguement?


Curious that you would argue mere words violate the UN Charter, but the unsanctioned invasion of another country does not.

Of course, you flip-flop on whether the UN Charter is even international law.

After the Persian Gulf War? No, he did not.

he threatened Kuwait and Israel constently as well as the US since Gulf War 1 so do not give me that.

Curious that you would argue mere words violate the UN Charter, but the unsanctioned invasion of another country does not.

Of course, you flip-flop on whether the UN Charter is even international law.

I'm not going to argue the legality of the war here because 1) I'm tired of arguing it with International Law facts that no one listens to and 2) has no place here. Actually, this whole discussion is really off topic and deserves its own thread.

Actually it isn't false. Under the ICC, it only has jurisdiction if the a nation is not willing to prosecute their own people. Since we are willing to prosecute our own people, AND HAVE, the ICC wouldn't have jurisdiction over us to begin with.

Why were personell not prosecuted for the mining of Nicaraguas harbours?


Because it isn't a court that is mandated by the United Nations Charter..

A certain amount of disengenuity there, as thats no reason no to sign up to it. However its true on this level - the US and the various powers have a veto in the UN, whereas they wouldnt and don't in the ICC.


I bet we prosecute without anyone knowing about it. JAG is really a closed door thing for the media unless it is a high profile situation like Abu Ghraib...

But as the torture regimes have been in many cases approved from the Washington level, including beatings and mental torture, who from there will be prosecuted and by whom? For instance the current US attorney general has written various papers on the subject which state that a suspect can be beaten as long as its not to death etc. Who deals with him? Who gave active support to those who launched a coup against Chavez? Who gets prosecuted for that?


However, Bush didn't violate International law....

Then why did the British want a second resolution? And havent you been told about coming out with this discredited crap before - very fucking recently.


He constistently threatened the territorial integrity of his neighbors which under the UN Charter he cannot do.....

According to a british cabinet memo which I linked in another thread -

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. "

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

This is from July 2002.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

Please comment on this.

he threatened Kuwait and Israel constently as well as the US since Gulf War 1 so do not give me that.


I refer you to post 359. Please comment.

I refer you to post 296. Please comment.

What does this have to do with Patriot Guard Riders shielding families from protestors?

What does this have to do with Patriot Guard Riders shielding families from protestors?
Worming out from answering the question, eh?

*edit: why don't you start another thread, then.

Worming out from answering the question, eh?

*edit: why don't you start another thread, then.

I'm trying to get this back on topic.

I'm trying to get this back on topic.
cop-out.

cop-out.

Its off-topic and your not going to goad me into responding to the post. In fact, I will not respond to any more off-topic posts in this thread.

*goes back to smashing Pitt in NCAA MM06*

I'm not going to argue the legality of the war here because 1) I'm tired of arguing it with International Law facts that no one listens to and 2) has no place here. Actually, this whole discussion is really off topic and deserves its own thread.

Translation = "Mommy, the big mean man is using logic. I won't play anymore. I'm taking my marbles and going home."

*goes back to smashing Pitt in NCAA MM06*
*declares Nodinia winner*

Congrats on pwning Corny, Nodinia. This is like a rite of passage on NS General.

Translation = "Mommy, the big mean man is using logic. I won't play anymore. I'm taking my marbles and going home."

No its an off-topic post. In otherwords, threadjacking. This whole discussion deserves its own seperate thread.

*declares Nodinia winner*

Congrats on pwning Corny, Nodinia. This is like a rite of passage on NS General.

:rolleyes:

Excuse me for trying to get things back on track.

No its an off-topic post. In otherwords, threadjacking. This whole discussion deserves its own seperate thread.
Which you're unwilling to start, apparently. Hence, you lose to Nodinia.

No its an off-topic post. In otherwords, threadjacking. This whole discussion deserves its own seperate thread.
Cop-out.
You have been actively participating in off-topic debate for quite some time now and when things get hairy, you don't want to play anymore.

Which you're unwilling to start, apparently. Hence, you lose to Nodinia.
Because I don't start a thread? Oh brother.

Back to the topic: I applaud the Patriot Guard for what they are doing. keep up the good work people.

I applaud the Patriot Guard for what they are doing. keep up the good work people.
But they're interfering with people's constitutional rights. That's not good work.

But they're interfering with people's constitutional rights. That's not good work.

And protecting the people who just lost loved ones who were doing THEIR DUTY. I don't care if your for or against the war, but leave the families of those who have died in the war alone.

leave the families of those who have died in the war alone.
Can't. Wouldn't try. People got their rights. Simple as that.


"Duty" doesn't enter into it.

And protecting the people who just lost loved ones who were doing THEIR DUTY. I don't care if your for or against the war, but leave the families of those who have died in the war alone.
I agree that they should, however they have every right to protest.

Can't. Wouldn't try. People got their rights. Simple as that.


"Duty" doesn't enter into it.

And what about the rights of the families who want to bury their loved ones in peace? Should their rights be ignored in the name of speech?

And what about the rights of the families who want to bury their loved ones in peace? Should their rights be ignored in the name of speech?
You tell me.

I agree that they should, however they have every right to protest.

And the families have every right to bury their loved ones in peace.

And what about the rights of the families who want to bury their loved ones in peace? Should their rights be ignored in the name of speech?
There is no right to a peaceful funeral.

And what about the rights of the families who want to bury their loved ones in peace? Should their rights be ignored in the name of speech?

Which imaginary right is being violated?

And you claim to be a strict constructionist. :rolleyes:

And the families have every right to bury their loved ones in peace.
Except insofar as thats not guaranteed in the constitution.

You tell me.

I don't think the families should have to put up with protestors at their loved ones funerals. If they don't object to the Patriot Guard protecting them from the protestors then more power to them.

Except insofar as thats not guaranteed in the constitution.

And neither is protesting at a funeral.

Which imaginary right is being violated?

Oh I don't know. How about the right to say.... PRIVACY?

I don't think the families should have to put up with protestors at their loved ones funerals. If they don't object to the Patriot Guard protecting them from the protestors then more power to them.
Provided these Patriot people do absolutely nothing to interfere with the rights of the protestors, more power to them.

There is no right to a peaceful funeral.
There isn't a right against one either.

Provided these Patriot people do absolutely nothing to interfere with the rights of the protestors, more power to them.

I don't believe they are interfering with their protests. Just protecting the families from it. Which isn't interfering at all with them.

Oh I don't know. How about the right to say.... PRIVACY?
Since when are cemetaries private places?

I don't believe they are interfering with their protests. Just protecting the families from it. Which isn't interfering at all with them.
Intimidation.

Oh I don't know. How about the right to say.... PRIVACY?

But don't rightists usually claim there is no such right?

Since when are cemetaries private places?

What about the family's right to privacy?

But don't rightists usually claim there is no such right?
Nice one.

But don't rightists usually claim there is no such right?

No they don't claim there isn't a right to privacy.

Because I don't start a thread? Oh brother.

Back to the topic: I applaud the Patriot Guard for what they are doing. keep up the good work people.

Yes what they are doing is right because homophobia is wrong. Yes, you "lose" and now are awarded the collecors edition Christian Aguilera doll for "whiner extraordinaire".

By the way......Heres that post in a new thread. I expect an answer.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10638735#post10638735

Yes what they are doing is right because homophobia is wrong. Yes, you "lose" and now are awarded the collecors edition Christian Aguilera doll for "whiner extraordinaire".

By the way......Heres that post in a new thread. I expect an answer.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10638735#post10638735

Ask a little nicer and I might grace your thread with my presence.

No they don't claim there isn't a right to privacy.
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW02-01-06.jpg
Sez you.

And neither is protesting at a funeral.

Yes. All free speech is protected by the First Amendment. As is freedom of assembly.

No they don't claim there isn't a right to privacy.

Really?

So you support Griswold v. Connecticut?

BTW, private individuals can't violate the Constitution. Only state action can.

No they don't claim there isn't a right to privacy.

Oh, so I just dreamed Bowers vs. Hardwick and Lawrence vs. Texas up?

So... what are these people protesting anyway? Funerals?

A funeral is neither the time nor the place for such behaviour, and they should be ashamed for their behaviour.

As for the Patriot Guard? Good on them.

PS Could the Patriot Guard's actions be said to be a protest against the protestors?

Ask a little nicer and I might grace your thread with my presence.

Please "grace" the thread and comment on the various issues which for some reason I can't possibly imagine you've avoided commenting on now.

So... what are these people protesting anyway? Funerals?

A funeral is neither the time nor the place for such behaviour, and they should be ashamed for their behaviour.

As for the Patriot Guard? Good on them.

PS Could the Patriot Guard's actions be said to be a protest against the protestors?

They are stating that the reason the soldiers are being killed in Iraq is because God is angry with America for tolerating homosexuality. Fred Phelps is the head of their group. Hes a person of some notoriety.

They are stating that the reason the soldiers are being killed in Iraq is because God is angry with America for tolerating homosexuality.

Yeah, I kinda get it, it just doesn't make sense. Damned bigots.
Surely the reason soldiers are being killed in Iraq is because Bush wanted to finish what Daddy started, and his lap-dog, Blair, didn't argue.

The law at the time stated that once your drafted, you go and you serve. What makes you think that they actually might go to vietnam. The may not have gone to Vietnam. However, they choose, choose mind you, to break the law and they should've been punished for it. To be perfectly honest, there shouldn't be any deferments unless you were going to a military academy.

In addition, my father got a draft notice. However, he wasn't drafted because at the time, he was going to be going to the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. This was back in the late 1960s. However, my father choose to serve in the military as an officer. Since his graduation, he has been to many hotspots around the world including getting shot at in Bosnia and Iraq.

As for Consciencous Objectors, they are cowards. They signed up to serve their country and when their unit gets called up, they leave it. Yes that's being a coward. I can understand being afraid. He who isn't scared is either dead or stupid. They signed up to do a job and by leaving, they forced someone else to do their job for them. I have no sympathy for these people.
Ahhh, such scorn, from the pro Iraq war Corny, no less.

I do recall some debate regarding you and why you (a 23 year old male) pro Iraq War kinda guy, and the reasons why you didn't sign up to defend your country. I believe the first reason was that you wouldn't get along with the Generals because you "don't follow orders too well". Then someone suggested that you were a "coward" and so then you stated that you couldn't go to war because your mom and dad had served and that you being the only son were exempt from service. However, this was proven to be a false premise:

Claim: Being an only child (or an only son) automatically exempts you from military service. (http://www.snopes.com/military/onlyson.htm)

Since that excuse didn't pan out, you stated that you couldn't enlist because of a medical disability.

And here you are calling people "cowards", suggesting that they should be "punished", and that there shouldn't be any "deferments". Judging by your words, I suppose that you think there shouldn't have been an amnesty either?

Perhaps silence on matters such as these would save you some embarassment?

The International Criminal Court did such a great job over the years with people like Saddam Hussein that I can't imagine why America would object. :rolleyes:
Iraq was not a signator to the International Court of Justice, and neither is the US. That could have been a small part of the problem?

International Criminal court. A court that isn't recognized by the US and rightfully so.
Why isn't it recognized by the US, and why is it right for the US not to recognize the court?

No they are not absurd. The United Nations cannot tell a nation when it can wage war. The Nations themselves decide that.
Not true!!

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)

Read it again for the first time.

Then why the hell did we let Saddam fester in Iraq for so long when he has threatened the integrity of Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, The United States and our allies?
Lets see now. Israel threatened the "integrity" of Iraq in 1981:

Why did Israel unilaterally attack Iraq in 1981? (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.php)

Why did Reagan remove Iraq from list of terrorist nations in 1982, and supply them with WMD?

U.S. was a key supplier to Saddam (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/88244_sean24.shtml)

Why did the US recognize Iraq in 1983? Why did the US assist Iraq in war against Iran? Why did the US double cross Iraq by supplying arms to Iran? Why did the US double cross Iraq again in 1990 in regards to Kuwait?

Iraq threatened the "integrity" of the US? How?

Try a little reading there Corny:

Our History with Iraq (http://www.ithaca.edu/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm)

Please "grace" the thread and comment on the various issues which for some reason I can't possibly imagine you've avoided commenting on now.

Because I had more important things to do than this which never changes minds whatsoever. I have my own opinions on certain issues and they are my opinions. I don't care if you like them or not but they are my opinions. Just like you have your own opinions.

*snip*

The US is a soveriegn nation, answerable to the People of the United States and to God. I hope he blesses the Patriot Guard and their noble cause to defend the privacy of the family.

The US is a soveriegn nation, answerable to the People of the United States and to God. I hope he blesses the Patriot Guard and their noble cause to defend the privacy of the family.

Even went so far as to use a deity as a cop-out. Tsk, tsk.

Even went so far as to use a deity as a cop-out. Tsk, tsk.

:confused:

:confused:

You fail to rebut, and all you do is go "God bless America." It's quite hollow, you know. Especially since you invoked the right to privacy, but never answered the question about Griswold vs. Connecticut.

No


quarter


given.

The families deserve any humiliation they get. If being a US soldier was no longer considered honorable, many of the world’s problems would be solved.

The families deserve any humiliation they get. If being a US soldier was no longer considered honorable, many of the world’s problems would be solved.That's a bunch of hokey. Every family should be allowed to bury their own in peace. Whether they are soldiers or mass murderers like Milosevic, they deserve to be left alone in that last event where they can't defend themselves.

That's a bunch of hokey. Every family should be allowed to bury their own in peace. Whether they are soldiers or mass murderers like Milosevic, they deserve to be left alone in that last event where they can't defend themselves.
I have no qualms with insulting the dead, as they are no longer living. The whole point of insulting the dead at their funeral is to shame the family. Any family that doesn’t disown a mass-murderer deserves to be made to feel guilty for it.

The families deserve any humiliation they get. If being a US soldier was no longer considered honorable, many of the world’s problems would be solved.

Being a soldier is just as honorable as being a fireman, police officer, postman, or any other profession.

I have no qualms with insulting the dead, as they are no longer living. The whole point of insulting the dead at their funeral is to shame the family. Any family that doesn’t disown a mass-murderer deserves to be made to feel guilty for it.

Then I call you a coward for attacking people who no longer can defend themselves.

Being a soldier is just as honorable as being a fireman, police officer, postman, or any other profession.
...in your opinion.

Then I call you a coward for attacking people who no longer can defend themselves.
And I call you a coward for skipping out on questions put to you, then jumping up and down with your arms waving all about in Moderation screeching 'Flame War!' for no adequately justified reason.

The families deserve any humiliation they get. If being a US soldier was no longer considered honorable, many of the world’s problems would be solved.
Would that be before the attacks on America or after?

Would that be before the attacks on America or after?
During.

I have no qualms with insulting the dead, as they are no longer living. The whole point of insulting the dead at their funeral is to shame the family. Any family that doesn’t disown a mass-murderer deserves to be made to feel guilty for it.
I truly feel sorry for you. Let me know when you grow up a bit.

...in your opinion.

And in alot of others too. Especially those that join the service. It isn't just my opinion.

And I call you a coward for skipping out on questions put to you, then jumping up and down with your arms waving all about in Moderation screeching 'Flame War!' for no adequately justified reason.

Actually it is justified because no matter what I had to say, it would be labeled as wrong and then bashed for it. So no, I wasn't worg. And that has no business in this thread.

And in alot of others too. Especially those that join the service. It isn't just my opinion.
Those that join the service don't have an opinion any more special than those of anybody else.

Actually it is justified because no matter what I had to say, it would be labeled as wrong and then bashed for it. So no, I wasn't worg. And that has no business in this thread.
...and neither does calling people cowards. Call it a wash.

During.
Remember when the USSR dissolved? Remember the ensuing confusion, and in some cases chaos among all their "client" states? That's a minor example of what happens when a major power falls. If you think things are bad now, you're going to go totally insane if America folds.

Those that join the service don't have an opinion any more special than those of anybody else.

Your right they don't. However it is still their opinion that being a soldier is honorable.

...and neither does calling people cowards. Call it a wash.

he is a coward for picking on the defenseless.

Remember when the USSR dissolved? Remember the ensuing confusion, and in some cases chaos among all their "client" states? That's a minor example of what happens when a major power falls. If you think things are bad now, you're going to go totally insane if America folds.
Try me.

At least it's better than spinning this wretched passive existence out for another sixty-odd years.

At this point it's better the Devil I don't know than the one I already do.

he is a coward for picking on the defenseless.
So start a thread about it, then.

So start a thread about it, then.

No I don't have to as what he says coincides with this thread.

he is a coward for picking on the defenseless.
While I don't agree on people protesting anyones death, unless it is a wrongful death, I can only shake my head at your constant use of the word "coward".

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10640300&postcount=405

Kind of a judgement thing huh?

What I don't understand is that if certain groups feel set upon by Phelps (as the Patriot Riders seem to feel when dead soldiers are concerned), why don't other groups do the same thing?

Nothing stopping them, you know.

For instance, if there are truly as many gay and lesbian people as they say there are, why no turn out of 10,000 of them on Harleys to shield the ones set upon by Phelps?

Eh?

They shouldn't have to.

Huh? Motorcycles?

HAHAHA! I was actually thinking about the dancing Hitler when I said that. Glad you didn't let me down.

http://img4.smiliedb.de/sdb82797.gif__http://img4.smiliedb.de/sdb26577.gifhttp://img4.smiliedb.de/sdb57160.gifhttp://img4.smiliedb.de/sdb75896.gif
-snippage-http://img4.smiliedb.de/sdb77561.gifhttp://img4.smiliedb.de/sdb83916.gifhttp://img4.smiliedb.de/sdb11317.gif
Mini Dancing Hitler
http://jeremyb.net/images/emoticons/hitler.gif
You make me happy, Harlesburg.:)
Oh Shucks :fluffle:

They shouldn't have to.
Why not?

As objectionable as Phelps is, he's exercising First Amendment rights.

You can exercise yours and drown him out (which is the idea behind the motorcycles).

Or are you saying we should ditch the First Amendment? Or that you are going to be in charge of what is and is not acceptable speech?

Vigilantes at funerals! Protestors at funerals! I could see if it was the funeral of some Mafia don, but these are just people who gave their lives in the service of their country. I’m pretty damned certain the country they game their lives for didn’t include having protest rallies at their funeral, while they jostled with vigilantes.

If you want to go protest at someone’s funeral, start with the chicken hawks in the Republican Party who actually start the wars you’re protesting. Protesting at the funerals of soldiers shows a lack of respect for humanity and is about as sensible as protesting acts of arson at a fireman’s funerals. If you have a problem with the post office then by that logic you should go to the funeral of an employee to raise hell? Sounds stupid and shameful doesn’t it? The kind of thing only the lowest of the low would do. I would hope so or you’re parents obviously did a crappy job raising you.

I think that people need to get it into their thick skulls that in democracies, soldiers don’t start wars, it’s the idiots you voted in and supported that do that.

The Bruce

Vigilantes at funerals! Protestors at funerals! I could see if it was the funeral of some Mafia don, but these are just people who gave their lives in the service of their country. I’m pretty damned certain the country they game their lives for didn’t include having protest rallies at their funeral, while they jostled with vigilantes.

In this case, I do not believe vigilantes is the correct word to use.

If you want to go protest at someone’s funeral, start with the chicken hawks in the Republican Party who actually start the wars you’re protesting.

*grabs a picket sign and protests againsts the Democrats for starting most of the wars US has fought in*

Protesting at the funerals of soldiers shows a lack of respect for humanity and is about as sensible as protesting acts of arson at a fireman’s funerals. If you have a problem with the post office then by that logic you should go to the funeral of an employee to raise hell? Sounds stupid and shameful doesn’t it? The kind of thing only the lowest of the low would do. I would hope so or you’re parents obviously did a crappy job raising you.

I agree 100%

I think that people need to get it into their thick skulls that in democracies, soldiers don’t start wars, it’s the idiots you voted in and supported that do that.

Very well said Bruce.

There are ancient laws against disrespect for the dead and I think in cases like this arrests should be made. Funerals are for the loved ones of the diseased to try to cope with their loss, not for a bunch of human trash to try to protest at because they’re too lazy to pay the busfare to protest against the actual government.

Trashtalking people at funerals whose only crime was burying their fallen child or spouse, who volunteered to serve your country, is going beyond acceptable behavior in any society. Funerals are sacred moments in our societies, where we shouldn’t have to worry about the event being crashed by protestors. Next they’re going to start protesting at the weddings of soldiers. I can’t believe that anyone who calls themselves a human being would find this acceptable.

The Bruce

There are ancient laws against disrespect for the dead and I think in cases like this arrests should be made. Funerals are for the loved ones of the diseased to try to cope with their loss, not for a bunch of human trash to try to protest at because they’re too lazy to pay the busfare to protest against the actual government.

Trashtalking people at funerals whose only crime was burying their fallen child or spouse, who volunteered to serve your country, is going beyond acceptable behavior in any society. Funerals are sacred moments in our societies, where we shouldn’t have to worry about the event being crashed by protestors. Next they’re going to start protesting at the weddings of soldiers. I can’t believe that anyone who calls themselves a human being would find this acceptable.

The Bruce

*hands The Bruce a cookie*

I agree with you 100%

I don’t think that Fred Philps ultra-whacky Christian hate group should even be thought of as peace protestors for that matter. If there were anti-hate group legislation this guy would be one of the first in the slammer and good riddance. For that matter this guy should be thrown in the slammer for child abuse.

“Rev.” (If God anoints people like this then colour me atheist) Fred Phelps believes American deaths in Iraq are divine punishment for a country that harbors homosexuals. These were the same inbred freaks of nature that went to the funeral for the miners killed at Sago and praising god for killing sinning miners who were now in Hell.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=185