"Cluster bombs called 'war crime'"

On 26 Jan 2004 05:15:05 -0800, (Rob van Riel) wrote:

"cypher745" wrote in message om...
Rats,
It has been eluded to on this board that you are a socialist or a communist.
Is it true?
I only ask, because I am trying to understand your point of view.

Now you've gotten me curious: Just what do his political convictions
have to do with his opinion about a means of waging war, or his
apparent hatred of the US? It is quite possible to not take political
beliefs to the point where they become automatic grounds for a holy
war against all those of opposing views.

I'm also forced to note that the way in which you refer to socialism
and communism implies that these views of the world are somehow
shameful. Am I reading too much into it, or is this true?

Rob

Socialism and communism are, and have repeatedly been shown to be,
immoral. They inevitably lead to dictatorship. They are very shameful,
and any intelligent person sees them as such.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote
"S. Sampson" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote

By that criteria, I'll still say little or no "carpet bombing" in SEA.

If you limit it to iron. The most common carpet bombing in Vietnam
was the defoliant chemicals.

Maybe there's a more correct term, as "bombing" seems to signify
explosives, rather than biological weapons.

The US did not use any biological weapons in SEA.

Poor choice of words, so I guess plants aren't really biological...

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:57:43 -0600, S. Sampson wrote:

Poor choice of words, so I guess plants aren't really biological...

Which biological weapons were used in SEA?

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

"Yeff" wrote
S. Sampson wrote:

Poor choice of words, so I guess plants aren't really biological...

Which biological weapons were used in SEA?

M-14 and M-16 were used against the "carbon based units."

In article ,
"Ragnar" wrote:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: "Cluster bombs called 'war crime'"
From: IBM
Date: 1/24/04 11:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Xns947AEE42DF19Bibmsvpalorg

Why did the lawyers not sue Saddam Hussein first? Or the late Soviet
leaders for the the Soviet Union's 1956 Invasion of Hungary? the 1968
Invasion of Czechoslovakia; and the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan? Will
the late Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev be labeled as war criminals
in historical terms?

Because they ( the lawyers ) are looney leftists.
A cluster bomb is no more illegal than a rifle bullet.
The use to which these instruments are put might constitute
a crime under certain conditions however.

Lawyers as a voting block are 95% conservative.

Cite?

This I gotta see.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ragnar" wrote:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: "Cluster bombs called 'war crime'"
From: IBM
Date: 1/24/04 11:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Xns947AEE42DF19Bibmsvpalorg

Why did the lawyers not sue Saddam Hussein first? Or the late Soviet
leaders for the the Soviet Union's 1956 Invasion of Hungary? the
1968
Invasion of Czechoslovakia; and the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan?
Will
the late Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev be labeled as war
criminals
in historical terms?

Because they ( the lawyers ) are looney leftists.
A cluster bomb is no more illegal than a rifle bullet.
The use to which these instruments are put might constitute
a crime under certain conditions however.

Lawyers as a voting block are 95% conservative.

Cite?

This I gotta see.

You won't. Art assiduously avoids all attempts to keep him honest.

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
Socialism and communism are, and have repeatedly been shown to be,
immoral.

Care to supply an example? A real example, mind you, not one that
roughly reads "such-and-such really nasty person did really nasty
things in the name of communism", as such examples can be found for
any religion or conviction, and are moreover mostly based on leaders
who went directly against the ideals they claimed to represent.

They inevitably lead to dictatorship.

Not true. They have been used repeatedly by power hungry individuals
to incite a revolution against thouroughly rotten regimes. Said power
hungry individuals then proceeded to replace the previous rotten
regime with yet another rotten dictatorship, which had nothing even
remotely in common with either socialism or communism. I should point
out that the replaced regimes were usually every bit as bad, and
didn't even call themselved socialist or communist.

I don't think either doctrine has ever been implemented anywhere.
Perversions based on communism have, and much harm was done by those,
but they were perversions.

I'll grant you one thing though. Communism requires an ideal humanity
to work, and it is very naive to believe such a thing is available.
Attemting to implement it with less than ideal humans gives ruthless
individuals way too many opportunities to seize power and corrupt the
whole system.


They are very shameful, and any intelligent person sees them as such.

Such lovely reasoning. I'm right, and any who disagree with me are
utterly stupid. Gotta love that style.


Rob

On 1/27/04 3:08 AM, in article
, "Rob van Riel"
wrote:


I don't think either [socialism or communism] has ever been implemented
anywhere.

Communism requires an ideal humanity to work....
Attempting to implement it with less than ideal humans gives ruthless
individuals way too many opportunities to seize power and corrupt the
whole system.

Socialism and communism would require perfect god-like LEADERS. Perfect
CITIZENS do not need leaders at all.

Since we will only ever have imperfect citizens and leaders, communism is
the worst sort of philosophy. Democracy may not be the ideal form of
government, but it is better than any other mankind has devised.

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word:
equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks
equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint
and servitude."- Alexis de Tocqueville

"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election
by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
- George Bernard Shaw

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
- Josef Stalin


The refinement of democracy that is our Republic gives to us imperfect
humans our very best chance at freedom. Socialism and communism never really
speak in terms of freedom, but only in terms of equality. Enforced equality
is slavery and you may have all of that you like.



-------
Jack
-------

Ragnar wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Ragnar wrote:


"Mike Yared" wrote in message
...



Why did the lawyers not sue Saddam Hussein first? Or the late Soviet

leaders


for the the Soviet Union's 1956 Invasion of Hungary? the 1968 Invasion

of

Czechoslovakia; and the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan? Will the late Yuri
Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev be labeled as war criminals in historical
terms?


The lefties involved in these cases don't sue guys like Stalin because

they

know what he would do to them. Its easier and more profitable to whine
about the USA because they know they can get away with it.


Stalin is dead.


Thank you Captain Obvious. I'm sure other readers caught the point without
being an ass.


Ok. As I didn't, obviously, as you say, because of being an ass, would
you care to explain it to me without referring to legal proceedings
against long-dead individuals?

Or were you just breaking wind?

John

Jack wrote in message ...
On 1/27/04 3:08 AM, in article
, "Rob van Riel"
wrote:

Communism requires an ideal humanity to work....
Attempting to implement it with less than ideal humans gives ruthless
individuals way too many opportunities to seize power and corrupt the
whole system.

Socialism and communism would require perfect god-like LEADERS. Perfect
CITIZENS do not need leaders at all.

Depends on your definition of perfection. If you mean this to include
omniscience, you are right. Otherwise, perfect citizens still require
leadership.


Since we will only ever have imperfect citizens and leaders, communism is
the worst sort of philosophy. Democracy may not be the ideal form of
government, but it is better than any other mankind has devised.

You say this as though democracy and communism are incompatible. I
don't think communism places any restrictions on how leadership is
selected.


"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word:
equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks
equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint
and servitude."- Alexis de Tocqueville

With all due respect, this person has no idea what he's talking about.
There are many forms of democracy, and the majority offer not a trace
of equality, and although socialism, like just about any philosophy,
requires some restraint by the populace, it has nothing to do with
servitude, in fact, both it and communism practically demand that it
be abolished. Also, democracy is a means by which leadership is
selected, and has nothing to do with the policies said leadership
implements, which is the domain in which socialism (and many others)
fall.


"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election
by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
- George Bernard Shaw

Quite right, thus the law can indeed be bought and sold, and often it
is. I hope you don't consider this a good thing.


"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
- Josef Stalin

A lesson well learned and applied, it seems, by the current US
administration.


The refinement of democracy that is our Republic gives to us imperfect
humans our very best chance at freedom.

Actually, US society seems to give the ruthless and strong a carte
blanche to trample those weaker or more decent. Might makes right only
gives you the right to opress or be opressed.
Unrestricted freedom, which you appear to desire, has a different
name: anarchy.


Socialism and communism never really
speak in terms of freedom, but only in terms of equality.

An equal measure of freedom for all doesn't seem so bad to me. Some
restraints are necessary in any society, and I'd rather see the same
restrictions applied to everyone.


Enforced equality is slavery and you may have all of that you like.

Utter nonsense. In a slavery situation there are masters and slaves.
Since these are by definition unequal, equality, whether enforced or
not, precludes slavery.

Rob