[meteorite-list] Good By Bush - the nightmare is over

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:44:32 -0800
Message-ID: <93aaac890901210044m18f8a2b5n1feff48953125807_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hola All,

I think the point of the pro-Obama's is that the (supposedly
quiet/innocent) Bush supporters in this case are simply being
hypocrites. They're telling people to stop posting their opinions and
then including little pro-Bush bits in their messages.

In almost every post, that's been the case. The Obama supporters say
their bit, and then the Bush fellows come out and say "you're wrong to
bring your political views to the list - by the way, you're an idiot,
Bush was good."

Come on....are we all kids on here? I'm probably the only one posting
who can lay any claim to that, and I think I'll refrain from the same
rubbish. Hmmm - I will say this, as one who voted - either way, only
time will tell.

Jason


On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Sterling K. Webb
<sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Knowing full well that it would be wiser to steer
> clear of a spot (the List) which is one of the few
> places in the United States where a certain good
> feeling is not in evidence tonight, I foolishly plunge
> right in. I say "good feeling" if for no other reason
> than to celebrate a peaceful and lawful transfer of
> power that has continued unbroken since 1788,
> something rare in the last 220 years of history for
> most nations of this Earth.
>
>> violated the Geneva Conventions (emphasis removed)
>
> The Geneva Conventions apply ONLY to the uniformed
> armed forces of a nation as well as to members of such
> militias or volunteer corps that form part of those armed
> forces in a declared war. Do we even have declared wars
> anymore?
>
> The Taliban is not a nation. Neither is Al Qaedah. Their
> forces are not uniformed. They are not organized by
> ranks under superior officers. They do not conduct "their
> operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
> All of these are requirements for the Convention to apply.
> Moreover, the nation of which they might be the armed
> forces (if there were one) must be a prior signatory to the
> Convention. (Afghanistan, even before the Taliban existed,
> was not a signatory nation.)
>
> True, a certain President pledged to treat these prisoners
> according to the Convention, but I strongly doubt he even
> understood what he was saying. The Convention requires,
> among other things, that they be "allowed to receive by
> post or by any other means individual parcels or collective
> shipments containing, in particular, foodstuffs, clothing,
> medical supplies and articles of a religious, educational or
> recreational character which may meet their needs, including
> books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination
> papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials
> allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their
> cultural activities."
>
> The only thing missing from that list is hi-speed internet
> access. The only reason it's missing is that the Conventions
> are a century old, are utterly out of touch with reality, have
> always been out of touch with reality. However, since the
> prisoners currently in question were not uniformed soldiers
> of a nation engaged in "lawful war," the whole point is moot.
>
> No soccer uniforms for Al Qaedah, no trombones and violins
> for the Gitmo Band and Orchestra, no scientific equipment
> and how many pounds of ammonium nitrate was it that you
> needed for these science experiments?
>
> Attempting to apply the Geneva Convention to the real
> world generates nothing but absurdities. As long ago as
> WWII, it was completely out of touch. A spy behind
> enemy lines who was not wearing his uniform (and who
> would?) could and would be shot summarily, as would
> an escaped POW in a civilian suit. Resistance fighters
> were terrorists. But the world is not like that anymore.
>
> How does an 18-year-old girl wearing a bomb vest into
> a mosque in Iraq fit into the underlying conceptions of
> the Geneva Conventions? Or a Saudi grad student highjacking
> an airliner and flying it into a building? What does the
> Geneva Convention have to say about cutting off hostages'
> heads with comic opera swords on video?
>
> As a charge, the issue of the Geneva Convention is entirely
> irrelevant. The question of what should have been done, of
> what was done and why and how it was done, and how to
> resolve it are all vital concerns, but the Geneva Convention
> is neither here nor there in that matter. The question of our
> policy has to be resolved on its own merit or lack thereof.
>
> And lastly, the Geneva Convention is not a Law; it is a
> Treaty, or more precisely a Contract, between the signatory
> nations. There are no penalties for "violating" it, and any
> nation that is a party to it can withdraw at any time. The
> full text of the Convention on Prisoners can be found at:
> http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
>
> Ironically, if the Geneva Convention had been in force in
> 1776, it would NOT have applied to a rebellion or insurrection
> or other treasonous activities carried out within the lawful
> territory of a nation (that is, the British Empire) by various
> malcontents and purveyors of radical subversive "democratic"
> doctrines. In fact, George III declared American combatants
> traitors in 1775, denied them any POW status, and ordered
> their execution.
>
> Initially, these American terrorists were simply hung, but
> once there were British prisoners of the Americans as well,
> instant executions stopped. The British solution to the POW
> problem was put captured American forces on damaged
> or disabled naval vessels anchored off shore and then forget
> to feed them. The treatment was sufficiently bad that the
> vast majority of all American POW's died of starvation
> or disease, in numbers far greater than those killed in actual
> combat.
>
> Guantanamo is not good, but it's a lot better than that. In
> 1782, just before the war ended, American prisoners were
> declared legal POW's by the British Parliament. Possibly
> this was only because WE captured an entire British Army
> intact and now had something to bargain with. And in our
> paradoxical American Rodney-King-esque way, we all get
> along fine now... Don't we?
>
> True, this was not a meteorite-related post, but neither
> was all the rest of this evening's crap. Apologies to Michael
> Blood for yielding to the temptation for a dip in the duck
> pond; it just comes over me sometimes. And lastly, I want
> to thank Bernd Pauli for his gracious congratulations to
> this country as a whole, the best comment of the night,
> one that wasn't contentious but intended with good feeling.
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Darren Garrison" <cynapse at charter.net>
> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Good By Bush - the nightmare is over
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:23:15 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>...haters....hypocritical nonsense...bullying pulpit...nonsense
>
> All this over someone merely saying that they are glad that Bush was gone
> and
> wished he would be charged with war crimes? That is "hate"? If you
> genuinely
> think someone was corrupt, incompitent, and VIOLATED THE GENEVA
> CONVENTIONS--
> and say so-- that makes you a "hater"? Are you in the camp that nobody
> should
> say anything negative about a national leader? Because if so, you might be
> more
> happy here: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/19/thai.jail/
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Wed 21 Jan 2009 03:44:32 AM PST