|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 22, 2015 12:48:53 GMT
If your hypothetical "neighbor" were especially interested in the ocean view, he really should have considered the possibility that someone might purchase the adjoining property and improve it, thereby destroying his view, before he purchased the property in question. (In any case, you have equated his "murder[ing]" you with an act of war; and, unlike you, I simply do not regard killing in war as "murder.") You seem to believe that the League of Nations had a perfect right to act as it did in 1922; but that its successor had no such right in 1948. Interesting... Yes, the British people, almost 100 years ago--like most Americans, also--did, indeed, believe in "WASP Supremacy." Or, as it was then phrased, "the white man's burden." Nowadays, I find such thinking utterly repellent--as do most others--but I would not wish to superimpose today's way of thinking upon those who lived much earlier, and thereby judge them harshly. (If one were to do that, Abraham Lincoln would not be "The Great Liberator," but an enormous racist.) And I really do not wish for the left-leaning UN to establish what is (or is not) a "war of aggression." I much prefer the moral authority of either the US or Israel to the moral authority (?) of the UN.
In general I adhere to the principle of non-aggression.
"The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance."
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
Also commonly referred to as the NAP (non-aggression principle) we can note that it's based upon an ethical foundation as opposed to a moral foundation although ethics and morality share many commonalities. The ethical foundation is that aggression is a violation of the Right of Property as it applied to the person or the cummulative Right of Property of all of the people of a nation. The Right of Property extends to land, natural resources, but more importantly from my perspective to the "Right of Self" of the person as the human body is most certainly the property of the person. As mentioned the NAP is based upon ethical conduct in one's actions and it can be accurately stated that unethical conduct is also inherently immoral conduct.
As a former combat veteran I can attest to the fact that killing in war is generally about murdering the enemy in preference to defending yourself against the enemy that would attempt to murder you although I faced both situations in combat. We should also note that generally the deaths of innocent civilians because of war generally rivals or exceeds the number of deaths in the opposing military forces. You might not believe that war is about murder but as a person that has fought in war I know it's all about murdering the enemy preferably when the enemy represents no to threat to you.
With regard to the authority of the League of Nations and the United Nations we must understand that each had different levels of "authority" but both had the same authority as it related to the conditions of the treaty as it applied to the member nations. Unfortunately neither has acted strictly within the expressed authority granted to it by their respective treaty. For example Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (established in 1919 and not 1922) expressed the following:
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
Under this provision Great Britian, with concurrence from the League of Nations, established the nations of Trans-jordan and Palestine and the delegated responsibility of Great Britian, as the assigned Mandatory, was to ensure the further development of the government of each nation from a transitional "provisional" government to a modern "independent" government. In 1922 Great Britian ignored this limited role and responsibility related to the nation of Palestine by issuing the Mandate for Palestine in defiance to the opposition by the provisional Palestinian government and the Palestinian people that the territory of Palestine belonged to. The approval of the British Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations was a direct violation of expressed purpose and intent of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of nations and exceeded the authority of the League of Nations.
The United Nations, as noted, has different authority related to the members of that treaty (i.e. UN Charter). In that agreement the General Assembly acts exclusively in an advisory capacity while the Security Council has the authority to authorize actions. In 1947 the UNGA issued Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) that was a proposal to end the civil war in Palestine that was a direct result of the British Mandate for Palestine (that violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations). The UNGA was acting within it's delegated authority to offer a recommendation to the People and provisional government of Palestine but that recommendation was not a "mandate" and carried no authority with it.
UNGA Resolution 181, as a recommendation based upon the UN Charter, had to be approved by those in Palestine and there were two options for the approval. One would have been a direct vote of the Palestinina people (i.e. every permanent resident of Palestine at the time). The second option was that the representatives of the people could have agreed to the proposal. At that time the representatives were the Arab Council that represented 2/3rds of all Palestinians and the Jewish Agency that represented 1/3rd of the Palestinians. While the Jewish Agency voted to accept UNGA 181 without a vote of the people the Arab Council rejected it based upon the principle that it would require a popular vote of the people to accept such a proposals (i.e. the Right of Self-Determination of the People of Palestine). Because the Jewish Agency only represented 1/3rd of all Palestinians it had no authority to unilaterally impose it's will on all Palestinians.
The Jewish Agency had no authority to unilaterally impose the recommendation by the General Assembly of the United Nations and personally I don't believe that the Arab Council had this authority either even though it was the "representative" of 2/3rds of the Palestinian People at the time. The only way UNGA 181 could have been implemented, IMHO, would have been with a popular vote of the people (i.e. all permanent residents of Palestine).
I would also apply that same principle to a Israeli-Palestinian Peace Accord today. It should be subjected to a popular vote of all the people in "Palestine" which includes both Israel and the occupied territories. I believe such a vote is necessary if peace is to actually be achieved by the two people predominately because Hamas will not comply with a peace agreement without a vote of the Palestinian people. Hamas has stated it will comply with any peace accord approved by a popular vote of the Palestinians.
Like you I would also not seek to impose today's standards on those from the past but we can look back in retrospect. Retrospectively slavery should have been abolished when the United States was created in 1776 based upon the Declaration of Independence and retrospectively Great Britian was one of the worst possible choices to become the "Mandatory" over Palestine in 1919 based upon the Covenant of the League of Nations. That is merely a retrospective observation and not a judgement of the actual actions. We know that both of these observations are true based upon subsequent historical events. Of course we can't change the past so this always falls into the "would-a, should-a, could-a" category.
It is always interesting when you refer to "left-leaning" because it always addresses those that support the civil rights of the people, peace, and good will between individuals and nations. Why are you opposed to the civil rights of the people, peace, and good will between individuals and nations?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 23, 2015 18:24:41 GMT
If your hypothetical "neighbor" were especially interested in the ocean view, he really should have considered the possibility that someone might purchase the adjoining property and improve it, thereby destroying his view, before he purchased the property in question. (In any case, you have equated his "murder[ing]" you with an act of war; and, unlike you, I simply do not regard killing in war as "murder.") You seem to believe that the League of Nations had a perfect right to act as it did in 1922; but that its successor had no such right in 1948. Interesting... Yes, the British people, almost 100 years ago--like most Americans, also--did, indeed, believe in "WASP Supremacy." Or, as it was then phrased, "the white man's burden." Nowadays, I find such thinking utterly repellent--as do most others--but I would not wish to superimpose today's way of thinking upon those who lived much earlier, and thereby judge them harshly. (If one were to do that, Abraham Lincoln would not be "The Great Liberator," but an enormous racist.) And I really do not wish for the left-leaning UN to establish what is (or is not) a "war of aggression." I much prefer the moral authority of either the US or Israel to the moral authority (?) of the UN.
In general I adhere to the principle of non-aggression.
"The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance."
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
Also commonly referred to as the NAP (non-aggression principle) we can note that it's based upon an ethical foundation as opposed to a moral foundation although ethics and morality share many commonalities. The ethical foundation is that aggression is a violation of the Right of Property as it applied to the person or the cummulative Right of Property of all of the people of a nation. The Right of Property extends to land, natural resources, but more importantly from my perspective to the "Right of Self" of the person as the human body is most certainly the property of the person. As mentioned the NAP is based upon ethical conduct in one's actions and it can be accurately stated that unethical conduct is also inherently immoral conduct.
As a former combat veteran I can attest to the fact that killing in war is generally about murdering the enemy in preference to defending yourself against the enemy that would attempt to murder you although I faced both situations in combat. We should also note that generally the deaths of innocent civilians because of war generally rivals or exceeds the number of deaths in the opposing military forces. You might not believe that war is about murder but as a person that has fought in war I know it's all about murdering the enemy preferably when the enemy represents no to threat to you.
With regard to the authority of the League of Nations and the United Nations we must understand that each had different levels of "authority" but both had the same authority as it related to the conditions of the treaty as it applied to the member nations. Unfortunately neither has acted strictly within the expressed authority granted to it by their respective treaty. For example Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (established in 1919 and not 1922) expressed the following:
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
Under this provision Great Britian, with concurrence from the League of Nations, established the nations of Trans-jordan and Palestine and the delegated responsibility of Great Britian, as the assigned Mandatory, was to ensure the further development of the government of each nation from a transitional "provisional" government to a modern "independent" government. In 1922 Great Britian ignored this limited role and responsibility related to the nation of Palestine by issuing the Mandate for Palestine in defiance to the opposition by the provisional Palestinian government and the Palestinian people that the territory of Palestine belonged to. The approval of the British Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations was a direct violation of expressed purpose and intent of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of nations and exceeded the authority of the League of Nations.
The United Nations, as noted, has different authority related to the members of that treaty (i.e. UN Charter). In that agreement the General Assembly acts exclusively in an advisory capacity while the Security Council has the authority to authorize actions. In 1947 the UNGA issued Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) that was a proposal to end the civil war in Palestine that was a direct result of the British Mandate for Palestine (that violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations). The UNGA was acting within it's delegated authority to offer a recommendation to the People and provisional government of Palestine but that recommendation was not a "mandate" and carried no authority with it.
UNGA Resolution 181, as a recommendation based upon the UN Charter, had to be approved by those in Palestine and there were two options for the approval. One would have been a direct vote of the Palestinina people (i.e. every permanent resident of Palestine at the time). The second option was that the representatives of the people could have agreed to the proposal. At that time the representatives were the Arab Council that represented 2/3rds of all Palestinians and the Jewish Agency that represented 1/3rd of the Palestinians. While the Jewish Agency voted to accept UNGA 181 without a vote of the people the Arab Council rejected it based upon the principle that it would require a popular vote of the people to accept such a proposals (i.e. the Right of Self-Determination of the People of Palestine). Because the Jewish Agency only represented 1/3rd of all Palestinians it had no authority to unilaterally impose it's will on all Palestinians.
The Jewish Agency had no authority to unilaterally impose the recommendation by the General Assembly of the United Nations and personally I don't believe that the Arab Council had this authority either even though it was the "representative" of 2/3rds of the Palestinian People at the time. The only way UNGA 181 could have been implemented, IMHO, would have been with a popular vote of the people (i.e. all permanent residents of Palestine).
I would also apply that same principle to a Israeli-Palestinian Peace Accord today. It should be subjected to a popular vote of all the people in "Palestine" which includes both Israel and the occupied territories. I believe such a vote is necessary if peace is to actually be achieved by the two people predominately because Hamas will not comply with a peace agreement without a vote of the Palestinian people. Hamas has stated it will comply with any peace accord approved by a popular vote of the Palestinians.
Like you I would also not seek to impose today's standards on those from the past but we can look back in retrospect. Retrospectively slavery should have been abolished when the United States was created in 1776 based upon the Declaration of Independence and retrospectively Great Britian was one of the worst possible choices to become the "Mandatory" over Palestine in 1919 based upon the Covenant of the League of Nations. That is merely a retrospective observation and not a judgement of the actual actions. We know that both of these observations are true based upon subsequent historical events. Of course we can't change the past so this always falls into the "would-a, should-a, could-a" category.
It is always interesting when you refer to "left-leaning" because it always addresses those that support the civil rights of the people, peace, and good will between individuals and nations. Why are you opposed to the civil rights of the people, peace, and good will between individuals and nations?
The last sentence, above, obviously begs the question--it is, essentially, a circular argument--since I really do NOT oppose "the civil rights of the people, peace, and goodwill between individuals and nations." What I DO oppose, however--firmly!--is the belief in some international superstructure, whose authority exceeds any sovereign nation's authority. (It is my firm belief that, for Americans, the highest authority in all the world--for any sort of action, including international actions--resides in Washington, DC, rather than the Hague.) I find it most revealing that you believe that "killing in war is generally about murdering the enemy." Even if the enemy is not currently engaged in an effort to kill oneself and one's own comrades, that is surely his general intent. Which is exactly why killing in war has never been regarded as mere "murder." And I thoroughly reject your term, "occupied territories," just as much as I reject the infamous Z-word. Israel occupies no territories, whatsoever, that are not truly a part of Israel proper. (And no, I am not referring to the "1948 boundaries," which are entirely irrelevant. One might just as well claim that Texas should not be considered a part of the US--it should be given back to Mexico--since Texas was not a part of the original 13 colonies.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 24, 2015 11:39:21 GMT
In general I adhere to the principle of non-aggression.
"The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance."
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
Also commonly referred to as the NAP (non-aggression principle) we can note that it's based upon an ethical foundation as opposed to a moral foundation although ethics and morality share many commonalities. The ethical foundation is that aggression is a violation of the Right of Property as it applied to the person or the cummulative Right of Property of all of the people of a nation. The Right of Property extends to land, natural resources, but more importantly from my perspective to the "Right of Self" of the person as the human body is most certainly the property of the person. As mentioned the NAP is based upon ethical conduct in one's actions and it can be accurately stated that unethical conduct is also inherently immoral conduct.
As a former combat veteran I can attest to the fact that killing in war is generally about murdering the enemy in preference to defending yourself against the enemy that would attempt to murder you although I faced both situations in combat. We should also note that generally the deaths of innocent civilians because of war generally rivals or exceeds the number of deaths in the opposing military forces. You might not believe that war is about murder but as a person that has fought in war I know it's all about murdering the enemy preferably when the enemy represents no to threat to you.
With regard to the authority of the League of Nations and the United Nations we must understand that each had different levels of "authority" but both had the same authority as it related to the conditions of the treaty as it applied to the member nations. Unfortunately neither has acted strictly within the expressed authority granted to it by their respective treaty. For example Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (established in 1919 and not 1922) expressed the following:
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
Under this provision Great Britian, with concurrence from the League of Nations, established the nations of Trans-jordan and Palestine and the delegated responsibility of Great Britian, as the assigned Mandatory, was to ensure the further development of the government of each nation from a transitional "provisional" government to a modern "independent" government. In 1922 Great Britian ignored this limited role and responsibility related to the nation of Palestine by issuing the Mandate for Palestine in defiance to the opposition by the provisional Palestinian government and the Palestinian people that the territory of Palestine belonged to. The approval of the British Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations was a direct violation of expressed purpose and intent of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of nations and exceeded the authority of the League of Nations.
The United Nations, as noted, has different authority related to the members of that treaty (i.e. UN Charter). In that agreement the General Assembly acts exclusively in an advisory capacity while the Security Council has the authority to authorize actions. In 1947 the UNGA issued Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) that was a proposal to end the civil war in Palestine that was a direct result of the British Mandate for Palestine (that violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations). The UNGA was acting within it's delegated authority to offer a recommendation to the People and provisional government of Palestine but that recommendation was not a "mandate" and carried no authority with it.
UNGA Resolution 181, as a recommendation based upon the UN Charter, had to be approved by those in Palestine and there were two options for the approval. One would have been a direct vote of the Palestinina people (i.e. every permanent resident of Palestine at the time). The second option was that the representatives of the people could have agreed to the proposal. At that time the representatives were the Arab Council that represented 2/3rds of all Palestinians and the Jewish Agency that represented 1/3rd of the Palestinians. While the Jewish Agency voted to accept UNGA 181 without a vote of the people the Arab Council rejected it based upon the principle that it would require a popular vote of the people to accept such a proposals (i.e. the Right of Self-Determination of the People of Palestine). Because the Jewish Agency only represented 1/3rd of all Palestinians it had no authority to unilaterally impose it's will on all Palestinians.
The Jewish Agency had no authority to unilaterally impose the recommendation by the General Assembly of the United Nations and personally I don't believe that the Arab Council had this authority either even though it was the "representative" of 2/3rds of the Palestinian People at the time. The only way UNGA 181 could have been implemented, IMHO, would have been with a popular vote of the people (i.e. all permanent residents of Palestine).
I would also apply that same principle to a Israeli-Palestinian Peace Accord today. It should be subjected to a popular vote of all the people in "Palestine" which includes both Israel and the occupied territories. I believe such a vote is necessary if peace is to actually be achieved by the two people predominately because Hamas will not comply with a peace agreement without a vote of the Palestinian people. Hamas has stated it will comply with any peace accord approved by a popular vote of the Palestinians.
Like you I would also not seek to impose today's standards on those from the past but we can look back in retrospect. Retrospectively slavery should have been abolished when the United States was created in 1776 based upon the Declaration of Independence and retrospectively Great Britian was one of the worst possible choices to become the "Mandatory" over Palestine in 1919 based upon the Covenant of the League of Nations. That is merely a retrospective observation and not a judgement of the actual actions. We know that both of these observations are true based upon subsequent historical events. Of course we can't change the past so this always falls into the "would-a, should-a, could-a" category.
It is always interesting when you refer to "left-leaning" because it always addresses those that support the civil rights of the people, peace, and good will between individuals and nations. Why are you opposed to the civil rights of the people, peace, and good will between individuals and nations?
The last sentence, above, obviously begs the question--it is, essentially, a circular argument--since I really do NOT oppose "the civil rights of the people, peace, and goodwill between individuals and nations." What I DO oppose, however--firmly!--is the belief in some international superstructure, whose authority exceeds any sovereign nation's authority. (It is my firm belief that, for Americans, the highest authority in all the world--for any sort of action, including international actions--resides in Washington, DC, rather than the Hague.) I find it most revealing that you believe that "killing in war is generally about murdering the enemy." Even if the enemy is not currently engaged in an effort to kill oneself and one's own comrades, that is surely his general intent. Which is exactly why killing in war has never been regarded as mere "murder." And I thoroughly reject your term, "occupied territories," just as much as I reject the infamous Z-word. Israel occupies no territories, whatsoever, that are not truly a part of Israel proper. (And no, I am not referring to the "1948 boundaries," which are entirely irrelevant. One might just as well claim that Texas should not be considered a part of the US--it should be given back to Mexico--since Texas was not a part of the original 13 colonies.)
Your first argument ratlionalizes the invasion and occupation of Western Europe and Russia by the Nazi as being completely acceptable because the "Authority" of Germany superseded the authority of any alliance of nations. I reject that argument completely.
The authority of a national government only extends to those that consent to it's authority under the social contract. As the DOI expresses the just powers of government (i.e. the authority of government) exist based upon the consent of the governed. That is a fundamental tearnet of the American political ideology.
As also embodied in the American political ideology a land first and foremost belongs to the "natural born citizen" of that land. It is upon this inalienable right of citizenship that the social contract of government is created. It is the individual sovereignty of the person that creates national sovereignty.
You've read my arguments for open immigration but I've always qualified that by limiting it to immigration for peaceful purposes. A person that wants to immigrate and become a part of a nation does so by adoption of the homeland of the "natural born citizens" of that nation. If that is not their purpose, if there purpose is instead to take that land away from the natural born citizens, then it is not for peaceful purposes. The Mexican that moves to Southern California to become a citizen of the United States has a right to do so. A Mexican that moves to Southern California with the intent of taking it away from the Californians does not have a right to immigrate as their immigration is not for peaceful purposes.
There is a huge difference between immigration with the intent of sharing a homeland with the native born citizens of that land and immigration to land with the purpose of taking it away from the natural born citizens of that land. The two are juxtaposed to each other.
There was and old saying in the West that if a person drew first and killed someone it was murder. It didn't matter if there was a lot of yelling or even verbal threats leading up to the gunfight. If you actually drew first and killed the other person then you were the murderer.
I served in the Vietnam War and by the US sending our military to invade Vietnam and we "drew first" and I was a murderer. In 2003 the US invaded Iraq, we drew first, and the US soldiers were murderers. In 2001 the US invaded Afghanisan, we drew first, and the US soldiers were murderers.
In 1967 it was Israel that "drew first" and they're the murderers.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 26, 2015 17:47:18 GMT
The last sentence, above, obviously begs the question--it is, essentially, a circular argument--since I really do NOT oppose "the civil rights of the people, peace, and goodwill between individuals and nations." What I DO oppose, however--firmly!--is the belief in some international superstructure, whose authority exceeds any sovereign nation's authority. (It is my firm belief that, for Americans, the highest authority in all the world--for any sort of action, including international actions--resides in Washington, DC, rather than the Hague.) I find it most revealing that you believe that "killing in war is generally about murdering the enemy." Even if the enemy is not currently engaged in an effort to kill oneself and one's own comrades, that is surely his general intent. Which is exactly why killing in war has never been regarded as mere "murder." And I thoroughly reject your term, "occupied territories," just as much as I reject the infamous Z-word. Israel occupies no territories, whatsoever, that are not truly a part of Israel proper. (And no, I am not referring to the "1948 boundaries," which are entirely irrelevant. One might just as well claim that Texas should not be considered a part of the US--it should be given back to Mexico--since Texas was not a part of the original 13 colonies.)
Your first argument ratlionalizes the invasion and occupation of Western Europe and Russia by the Nazi as being completely acceptable because the "Authority" of Germany superseded the authority of any alliance of nations. I reject that argument completely.
The authority of a national government only extends to those that consent to it's authority under the social contract. As the DOI expresses the just powers of government (i.e. the authority of government) exist based upon the consent of the governed. That is a fundamental tearnet of the American political ideology.
As also embodied in the American political ideology a land first and foremost belongs to the "natural born citizen" of that land. It is upon this inalienable right of citizenship that the social contract of government is created. It is the individual sovereignty of the person that creates national sovereignty.
You've read my arguments for open immigration but I've always qualified that by limiting it to immigration for peaceful purposes. A person that wants to immigrate and become a part of a nation does so by adoption of the homeland of the "natural born citizens" of that nation. If that is not their purpose, if there purpose is instead to take that land away from the natural born citizens, then it is not for peaceful purposes. The Mexican that moves to Southern California to become a citizen of the United States has a right to do so. A Mexican that moves to Southern California with the intent of taking it away from the Californians does not have a right to immigrate as their immigration is not for peaceful purposes.
There is a huge difference between immigration with the intent of sharing a homeland with the native born citizens of that land and immigration to land with the purpose of taking it away from the natural born citizens of that land. The two are juxtaposed to each other.
There was and old saying in the West that if a person drew first and killed someone it was murder. It didn't matter if there was a lot of yelling or even verbal threats leading up to the gunfight. If you actually drew first and killed the other person then you were the murderer.
I served in the Vietnam War and by the US sending our military to invade Vietnam and we "drew first" and I was a murderer. In 2003 the US invaded Iraq, we drew first, and the US soldiers were murderers. In 2001 the US invaded Afghanisan, we drew first, and the US soldiers were murderers.
In 1967 it was Israel that "drew first" and they're the murderers.
I do not "rationalize" anything. (As a sovereign nation, Nazi German could attempt to conquer other land--and it did--but other sovereign nations had every right to repel that attempt.) Open immigration (even for purely peaceful purposes) has never been embraced by the US. More than 100 years ago, Ellis Island was emblematic of legal immigration to our shores. I will not get into an argument with you as concerning the legitimacy of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan--or, even earlier, Vietnam--but I will say that any soldier, in any war, at any time in history, is not a "murderer" because of his simply doing his duty. And his duty is to serve his government, even if he personally disagrees with its current actions. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 27, 2015 0:37:22 GMT
I do not "rationalize" anything. (As a sovereign nation, Nazi German could attempt to conquer other land--and it did--but other sovereign nations had every right to repel that attempt.) Open immigration (even for purely peaceful purposes) has never been embraced by the US. More than 100 years ago, Ellis Island was emblematic of legal immigration to our shores. I will not get into an argument with you as concerning the legitimacy of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan--or, even earlier, Vietnam--but I will say that any soldier, in any war, at any time in history, is not a "murderer" because of his simply doing his duty. And his duty is to serve his government, even if he personally disagrees with its current actions.
Correct me if I'm wrong but what you seem to be stating is the "Might Makes Right" ideology which I don't believe can be justified. Just because I have a gun and you don't doesn't imply that I have the right to take anything away from you. "Right Makes Right" and not "Might Makes Right" although many believe otherwise. Years ago I joined the American Legion and they had a pledge that they recited at the opening of the meetings that included the phrase "might makes right" and I dropped my membership because of that. I don't know if that is still included but it was certainly grounds for me to disassociate myself from that organization.
You refer to 100 years ago which was after the first "racist" immigration laws were passed. At the founding of America those like Madison, Washington, and Jefferson all endorsed open immigration to the United States. It was only after reconstruction when the racists came out of the woodwork was immigration ever restricted.
The government should never place a soldier in the postion where they become a murderer. Had I been more knowledgeable at the time I would have done exactly what Mohammad Ali and David Harris did and refused to be drafted. Going to prison as opposed to becoming a murderer because of the politicians would have been the correct course of action in 1968 when I was drafted. Unfortunately I was just a dumb teenager like hundreds of thousands of others that were drafted. I would not have taken the action of Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton to just avoid the draft because that is an evasion as opposed to a statement of individual morality. Sort of like the BS from Hillary Clinton that voted for the Iraq War Resolution and then had the gall to say she didn't vote to send the US to war against the people of Iraq. Hillary Clinton has the morality of a toad IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 28, 2015 17:51:09 GMT
I do not "rationalize" anything. (As a sovereign nation, Nazi German could attempt to conquer other land--and it did--but other sovereign nations had every right to repel that attempt.) Open immigration (even for purely peaceful purposes) has never been embraced by the US. More than 100 years ago, Ellis Island was emblematic of legal immigration to our shores. I will not get into an argument with you as concerning the legitimacy of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan--or, even earlier, Vietnam--but I will say that any soldier, in any war, at any time in history, is not a "murderer" because of his simply doing his duty. And his duty is to serve his government, even if he personally disagrees with its current actions.
Correct me if I'm wrong but what you seem to be stating is the "Might Makes Right" ideology which I don't believe can be justified. Just because I have a gun and you don't doesn't imply that I have the right to take anything away from you. "Right Makes Right" and not "Might Makes Right" although many believe otherwise. Years ago I joined the American Legion and they had a pledge that they recited at the opening of the meetings that included the phrase "might makes right" and I dropped my membership because of that. I don't know if that is still included but it was certainly grounds for me to disassociate myself from that organization.
You refer to 100 years ago which was after the first "racist" immigration laws were passed. At the founding of America those like Madison, Washington, and Jefferson all endorsed open immigration to the United States. It was only after reconstruction when the racists came out of the woodwork was immigration ever restricted.
The government should never place a soldier in the postion where they become a murderer. Had I been more knowledgeable at the time I would have done exactly what Mohammad Ali and David Harris did and refused to be drafted. Going to prison as opposed to becoming a murderer because of the politicians would have been the correct course of action in 1968 when I was drafted. Unfortunately I was just a dumb teenager like hundreds of thousands of others that were drafted. I would not have taken the action of Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton to just avoid the draft because that is an evasion as opposed to a statement of individual morality. Sort of like the BS from Hillary Clinton that voted for the Iraq War Resolution and then had the gall to say she didn't vote to send the US to war against the people of Iraq. Hillary Clinton has the morality of a toad IMHO.
Well, I certainly do agree with one thing you stated: Hillary Clinton (and Bill, also) is about as amoral as one may possibly be. Her chief desire seems to be to accumulate power--by whatever means necessary. No, I do not embrace the argument that "might makes right." How you derived that from my words, I have no idea. (Nor do I believe that "right makes might." If it did, tiny Belize--which is morally unobjectionable, as far as I can see--would be one of the most powerful nations in the world today.) I find it very interesting that you would consider Ellis Island (in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century) to be emblematic of "racis[m]." Oh, and in the late eighteenth century (at the time of the Founders), the American population was nowhere near the 320 million or so that it is today. No society can absorb an unlimited number of people; and since many more people wish to enter the US than to exit it permanently, "open immigration" in 2015 would amount to disaster for this country. And those Americans who fought in the Vietnam War--or in Iraq, or Afghanistan--and killed enemy soldiers, were emphatically not "murderer ." Whether you believe in the premises for those wars is entirely beside the point; and I do not intend to debate that matter. But I would add that German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers in WWII who killed Allied troops were also not murderers--just ordinary soldiers, doing their assigned job. (You have cited Muhammad Ali, in this regard. But your sentiments actually seem much closer to those of Michael Moore, who recently tweeted that snipers, in war, are "coward.") |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 29, 2015 12:03:02 GMT
Well, I certainly do agree with one thing you stated: Hillary Clinton (and Bill, also) is about as amoral as one may possibly be. Her chief desire seems to be to accumulate power--by whatever means necessary. No, I do not embrace the argument that "might makes right." How you derived that from my words, I have no idea. (Nor do I believe that "right makes might." If it did, tiny Belize--which is morally unobjectionable, as far as I can see--would be one of the most powerful nations in the world today.) I find it very interesting that you would consider Ellis Island (in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century) to be emblematic of "racis[m]." Oh, and in the late eighteenth century (at the time of the Founders), the American population was nowhere near the 320 million or so that it is today. No society can absorb an unlimited number of people; and since many more people wish to enter the US than to exit it permanently, "open immigration" in 2015 would amount to disaster for this country. And those Americans who fought in the Vietnam War--or in Iraq, or Afghanistan--and killed enemy soldiers, were emphatically not "murderer." Whether you believe in the premises for those wars is entirely beside the point; and I do not intend to debate that matter. But I would add that German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers in WWII who killed Allied troops were also not murderers--just ordinary soldiers, doing their assigned job. (You have cited Muhammad Ali, in this regard. But your sentiments actually seem much closer to those of Michael Moore, who recently tweeted that snipers, in war, are "coward.")
If you do not support the philosophy of "might makes right" then do you also oppose "imperialism" by the use of military force?
Ellis Island represented the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Ellis Island stood in stark juxtaposition to the "racist" immigration laws that originated in the late 19th Century.
You argument against open immigration for peaceful purposes seems to rest on an argument of "population density" which is one of the arguments cited for previous immigration laws that were based upon race, religion, and ethnic heritage (racism). When there were 100 million living in the United States many argued the nation could support no more, when 200 million lived in the United States some argued the nation could support no more, with slightly over 300 million today some argue the nation can support no more. So how many people can the nation support? Have we reached that point? Will we ever reach that point? The "population density" argument has repeatedly raised it's head historically and always to be proven wrong. Why should we believe an argument that has always proven to be wrong?
Here is a fact. Based upon the current GDP (i.e. annual wealth production) the United States could support a population of 750 million if it was equally divided. That is not a statement of endorsement for the equal distribution of the wealth produced by the US each year but if it was equally divided that's how many people it would support. A $15 trillion GDP divided by 750 million equals $20,000 each for every man, woman, and child which is actually greater than the median household income in the US today (i.e. household of four has a median income of about $50,000 today).
Question for you.
If the soldiers are not guilty of murder because they're only following orders that originate with the politicans then are the politicans that order the soldiers to kill people in foreign lands guilty of murder?
Michael Moore understands neither bravery or cowardice. Mohammad Ali and David Harris did. Both took a brave stance against the injustice of war and were willing to suffer the consequences of their convictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 2, 2015 18:17:11 GMT
Well, I certainly do agree with one thing you stated: Hillary Clinton (and Bill, also) is about as amoral as one may possibly be. Her chief desire seems to be to accumulate power--by whatever means necessary. No, I do not embrace the argument that "might makes right." How you derived that from my words, I have no idea. (Nor do I believe that "right makes might." If it did, tiny Belize--which is morally unobjectionable, as far as I can see--would be one of the most powerful nations in the world today.) I find it very interesting that you would consider Ellis Island (in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century) to be emblematic of "racis[m]." Oh, and in the late eighteenth century (at the time of the Founders), the American population was nowhere near the 320 million or so that it is today. No society can absorb an unlimited number of people; and since many more people wish to enter the US than to exit it permanently, "open immigration" in 2015 would amount to disaster for this country. And those Americans who fought in the Vietnam War--or in Iraq, or Afghanistan--and killed enemy soldiers, were emphatically not "murderer." Whether you believe in the premises for those wars is entirely beside the point; and I do not intend to debate that matter. But I would add that German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers in WWII who killed Allied troops were also not murderers--just ordinary soldiers, doing their assigned job. (You have cited Muhammad Ali, in this regard. But your sentiments actually seem much closer to those of Michael Moore, who recently tweeted that snipers, in war, are "coward.")
If you do not support the philosophy of "might makes right" then do you also oppose "imperialism" by the use of military force?
Ellis Island represented the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Ellis Island stood in stark juxtaposition to the "racist" immigration laws that originated in the late 19th Century.
You argument against open immigration for peaceful purposes seems to rest on an argument of "population density" which is one of the arguments cited for previous immigration laws that were based upon race, religion, and ethnic heritage (racism). When there were 100 million living in the United States many argued the nation could support no more, when 200 million lived in the United States some argued the nation could support no more, with slightly over 300 million today some argue the nation can support no more. So how many people can the nation support? Have we reached that point? Will we ever reach that point? The "population density" argument has repeatedly raised it's head historically and always to be proven wrong. Why should we believe an argument that has always proven to be wrong?
Here is a fact. Based upon the current GDP (i.e. annual wealth production) the United States could support a population of 750 million if it was equally divided. That is not a statement of endorsement for the equal distribution of the wealth produced by the US each year but if it was equally divided that's how many people it would support. A $15 trillion GDP divided by 750 million equals $20,000 each for every man, woman, and child which is actually greater than the median household income in the US today (i.e. household of four has a median income of about $50,000 today).
Question for you.
If the soldiers are not guilty of murder because they're only following orders that originate with the politicans then are the politicans that order the soldiers to kill people in foreign lands guilty of murder?
Michael Moore understands neither bravery or cowardice. Mohammad Ali and David Harris did. Both took a brave stance against the injustice of war and were willing to suffer the consequences of their convictions.
Yes, I do, indeed, oppose "imperialism." But I do not believe that the US is an imperialistic nation, as the left does. Are you, then, tacitly endorsing the concept of legal immigration, as symbolized by Ellis Island, with your statement that it stood "in stark juxtaposition" to some of the laws that originated around the same time? Do you believe that the mere fact that some previous assertions were wrong automatically means that all future assertions, along similar lines, must be wrong also? (By the way, since you do not endorse "the equal distribution of the wealth produced by the US each year"--which would amount to a sort of government-enforced egalitarianism, or socialism--your figure of "750 million" is utterly meaningless.) No, neither the soldiers nor the politicians who sent them to war (typically, with considerable anguish) are "guilty of murder." |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 3, 2015 13:42:29 GMT
Yes, I do, indeed, oppose "imperialism." But I do not believe that the US is an imperialistic nation, as the left does. Are you, then, tacitly endorsing the concept of legal immigration, as symbolized by Ellis Island, with your statement that it stood "in stark juxtaposition" to some of the laws that originated around the same time? Do you believe that the mere fact that some previous assertions were wrong automatically means that all future assertions, along similar lines, must be wrong also? (By the way, since you do not endorse "the equal distribution of the wealth produced by the US each year"--which would amount to a sort of government-enforced egalitarianism, or socialism--your figure of "750 million" is utterly meaningless.) No, neither the soldiers nor the politicians who sent them to war (typically, with considerable anguish) are "guilty of murder."
Were you ever aware of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC 1997-2006)? It was a conservative think tank that advocated Pax-Americana (US imperialism) implemented by world military domination. Among it's original signatories were Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, William Bennet, and Steve Forbes. Members of PNAC dominated the George W Bush adminstration. It's fundamental underlying tenet was that nations must comply with US political mandates or face US military annihilation. Some cite the invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government and the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam's government where both were replaced by US imposed governments as examples of PNAC military imperialism implemented by the former Bush Adminstration based upon PNAC advocacy by VP Dick Cheney.
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century#History
Ellis Island was exclusively about legal immigration to the United States. Where did you ever get the idea that those processed through Ellis Island were illegal immigrants to the United States?
No, I don't endorse government-enforced egalitarianism or socialism but the same problem exists for those today that existed for those that previously stated the US could not support 200 or 300 million people. As the population expands so does the GDP and the ability of the nation to support the ever increasing population. That has always been the case in the past and there is nothing indicating it won't be the same in the future.
Don't give me this "considerable anguish" of the politicans argument. That's unadulterated BS because, dispite all of the feigned caring, they really don't give a damn about the deaths and distruction their decisions to go to war cause. To believe that people like Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney cared one iota about the death and destruction the US invasion of Iraq would cause or the hundred thousand to one million innocent Iraqis that were murder or maimed because of the US invasion is pure fantasy. Hell, they didn't even care about the deaths and harm caused to US soldiers because of the war.
I'll give you an example of how much the politicans don't care about US soldiers. Virtually every veteran that files a disability claim with the VA is assumed to be a liar. This is especially true of mental disability claims such as filing for PTSD that every combat veteran suffers from. PTSD claims often take years before the veteran finally succeeds in obtaining disability compensation as the VA has a standard policy, entrenched in the law, to deny the claim. PTSD is one of the most damaging forms of mental illness and it is without any cure. PTSD robs the person of the ability to love, to sleep, to complete tasks, the ability to function normally, and eventually even the will to live. And yet every combat veteran that files a PTSD claim with the VA is assumed to be liar based upon the law.
Don't even try to claim that the politicans care about the damage their decisions to go to war cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 4, 2015 19:19:25 GMT
Yes, I do, indeed, oppose "imperialism." But I do not believe that the US is an imperialistic nation, as the left does. Are you, then, tacitly endorsing the concept of legal immigration, as symbolized by Ellis Island, with your statement that it stood "in stark juxtaposition" to some of the laws that originated around the same time? Do you believe that the mere fact that some previous assertions were wrong automatically means that all future assertions, along similar lines, must be wrong also? (By the way, since you do not endorse "the equal distribution of the wealth produced by the US each year"--which would amount to a sort of government-enforced egalitarianism, or socialism--your figure of "750 million" is utterly meaningless.) No, neither the soldiers nor the politicians who sent them to war (typically, with considerable anguish) are "guilty of murder."
Were you ever aware of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC 1997-2006)? It was a conservative think tank that advocated Pax-Americana (US imperialism) implemented by world military domination. Among it's original signatories were Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, William Bennet, and Steve Forbes. Members of PNAC dominated the George W Bush adminstration. It's fundamental underlying tenet was that nations must comply with US political mandates or face US military annihilation. Some cite the invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government and the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam's government where both were replaced by US imposed governments as examples of PNAC military imperialism implemented by the former Bush Adminstration based upon PNAC advocacy by VP Dick Cheney.
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century#History
Ellis Island was exclusively about legal immigration to the United States. Where did you ever get the idea that those processed through Ellis Island were illegal immigrants to the United States?
No, I don't endorse government-enforced egalitarianism or socialism but the same problem exists for those today that existed for those that previously stated the US could not support 200 or 300 million people. As the population expands so does the GDP and the ability of the nation to support the ever increasing population. That has always been the case in the past and there is nothing indicating it won't be the same in the future.
Don't give me this "considerable anguish" of the politicans argument. That's unadulterated BS because, dispite all of the feigned caring, they really don't give a damn about the deaths and distruction their decisions to go to war cause. To believe that people like Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney cared one iota about the death and destruction the US invasion of Iraq would cause or the hundred thousand to one million innocent Iraqis that were murder or maimed because of the US invasion is pure fantasy. Hell, they didn't even care about the deaths and harm caused to US soldiers because of the war.
I'll give you an example of how much the politicans don't care about US soldiers. Virtually every veteran that files a disability claim with the VA is assumed to be a liar. This is especially true of mental disability claims such as filing for PTSD that every combat veteran suffers from. PTSD claims often take years before the veteran finally succeeds in obtaining disability compensation as the VA has a standard policy, entrenched in the law, to deny the claim. PTSD is one of the most damaging forms of mental illness and it is without any cure. PTSD robs the person of the ability to love, to sleep, to complete tasks, the ability to function normally, and eventually even the will to live. And yet every combat veteran that files a PTSD claim with the VA is assumed to be liar based upon the law.
Don't even try to claim that the politicans care about the damage their decisions to go to war cause.
I really do not believe that rhe difficulty many veterans face in receiving disability benefits might (somehow) prove that American politicians don't "even care about the deaths and harm caused to US soldiers because of...war." I really do not know much about PNAC; and I will not pretend otherwise. But Wikipedia says of the (now erstwhile) organization: I would certainly endorse that basic view. Oh, here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century I do not believe--and certainly never stated--that "those processed through Ellis Island were illegal immigrants to the United States." In fact, I have no idea how you ever arrived at the conclusion that this is what I think. Rather, I inquired if your previous comments indicated that you view the immigration symbolized by Ellis Island to be a good thing. You seem to believe that the American population may be made infinitely expansive, since this would increase "the GDP and the ability of the nation to support an ever increasing population." In other words, if our population were to approach that of, say, India or China, that would (apparently) be perfectly okay with you... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 5, 2015 12:32:23 GMT
I really do not believe that rhe difficulty many veterans face in receiving disability benefits might (somehow) prove that American politicians don't "even care about the deaths and harm caused to US soldiers because of...war." I really do not know much about PNAC; and I will not pretend otherwise. But Wikipedia says of the (now erstwhile) organization: I would certainly endorse that basic view. Oh, here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century I do not believe--and certainly never stated--that "those processed through Ellis Island were illegal immigrants to the United States." In fact, I have no idea how you ever arrived at the conclusion that this is what I think. Rather, I inquired if your previous comments indicated that you view the immigration symbolized by Ellis Island to be a good thing. You seem to believe that the American population may be made infinitely expansive, since this would increase "the GDP and the ability of the nation to support an ever increasing population." In other words, if our population were to approach that of, say, India or China, that would (apparently) be perfectly okay with you...
The VA and the veteran should be working together to determine if a disability claim is valid and the extent of the disability. The laws should support that but they do not. The laws are written to "DENY, DENY, DENY" the disability claim in the hopes that eventually a disabled veteran will eventually give up. The laws are written to "screw the veteran in every way possible" to minimize any government liability for the harm it has caused the veteran. A compassionate Congress that actually cared about the veterans would never have written the laws they way they are. That is the point you miss.
I choked over the words "Reaganite... moral clarity" as I recalled the arming of terrorists in Nicaragua by the Reagan adminstration. How supporting terrorists can be equated with morality is beyond my comprehension but Reagan did exactly that in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with "military strength" per se there is when it is used to impose Pax-Americana on other countries. Are you aware, for example, that the US invasion of Iraq resulted in at least ten-times the number of innocent Iraqis dying than all of those claimed to have been murdered under the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein? We can certainly say that Saddam was a "bad man" but what about a country that invades and is responsible for over ten-times as many innocent people dying? We condemn Hitler for murdering over 11 million people but what about a nation that invades another much smaller nation and is responsible for the deaths of over 2 million of it's citizens?
Yes, I fully endorsed the immigration through Ellis Island although I'm aware of some limited problems with it created by disrepectful adminstration officials in some cases. Those immigrating through Ellis Island were often treated more like cattle than as people but at least they were allowed to enter the country legally. Those immigrants were the "tired, .... poor, .... huddled masses yearning to breathe free" from other countries but they were predominately WASP's immigrating from Northern Europe with a much smaller minority of Irish and Italian Catholics and a few European Jews. Why don't we welcome the "tired, .... poor, .... huddled masses yearning to breathe free" from Mexico and Latin America today is the question I'd ask but of course I know the answer already. It's because they're typically mixed-race Hispanic Catholics.
The issue isn't "if" the US population will reach the size of China or India but instead when. It's going to happen and it's only a question of time. The key is how do we address it economically and we won't be able to based upon current right-wing economic principles that ignore the "natural right of property" based upon the labor of the persn and instead seek to funnel the wealth creation of the United States into the hands of an elitist class of the super-wealthy investors that do not create the wealth through their labor. Only the worker creates wealth by producing goods and providing services and not the wealthy investor that profits exclusively from the labor of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 6, 2015 18:28:25 GMT
I really do not believe that rhe difficulty many veterans face in receiving disability benefits might (somehow) prove that American politicians don't "even care about the deaths and harm caused to US soldiers because of...war." I really do not know much about PNAC; and I will not pretend otherwise. But Wikipedia says of the (now erstwhile) organization: I would certainly endorse that basic view. Oh, here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century I do not believe--and certainly never stated--that "those processed through Ellis Island were illegal immigrants to the United States." In fact, I have no idea how you ever arrived at the conclusion that this is what I think. Rather, I inquired if your previous comments indicated that you view the immigration symbolized by Ellis Island to be a good thing. You seem to believe that the American population may be made infinitely expansive, since this would increase "the GDP and the ability of the nation to support an ever increasing population." In other words, if our population were to approach that of, say, India or China, that would (apparently) be perfectly okay with you...
The VA and the veteran should be working together to determine if a disability claim is valid and the extent of the disability. The laws should support that but they do not. The laws are written to "DENY, DENY, DENY" the disability claim in the hopes that eventually a disabled veteran will eventually give up. The laws are written to "screw the veteran in every way possible" to minimize any government liability for the harm it has caused the veteran. A compassionate Congress that actually cared about the veterans would never have written the laws they way they are. That is the point you miss.
I choked over the words "Reaganite... moral clarity" as I recalled the arming of terrorists in Nicaragua by the Reagan adminstration. How supporting terrorists can be equated with morality is beyond my comprehension but Reagan did exactly that in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with "military strength" per se there is when it is used to impose Pax-Americana on other countries. Are you aware, for example, that the US invasion of Iraq resulted in at least ten-times the number of innocent Iraqis dying than all of those claimed to have been murdered under the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein? We can certainly say that Saddam was a "bad man" but what about a country that invades and is responsible for over ten-times as many innocent people dying? We condemn Hitler for murdering over 11 million people but what about a nation that invades another much smaller nation and is responsible for the deaths of over 2 million of it's citizens?
Yes, I fully endorsed the immigration through Ellis Island although I'm aware of some limited problems with it created by disrepectful adminstration officials in some cases. Those immigrating through Ellis Island were often treated more like cattle than as people but at least they were allowed to enter the country legally. Those immigrants were the "tired, .... poor, .... huddled masses yearning to breathe free" from other countries but they were predominately WASP's immigrating from Northern Europe with a much smaller minority of Irish and Italian Catholics and a few European Jews. Why don't we welcome the "tired, .... poor, .... huddled masses yearning to breathe free" from Mexico and Latin America today is the question I'd ask but of course I know the answer already. It's because they're typically mixed-race Hispanic Catholics.
The issue isn't "if" the US population will reach the size of China or India but instead when. It's going to happen and it's only a question of time. The key is how do we address it economically and we won't be able to based upon current right-wing economic principles that ignore the "natural right of property" based upon the labor of the persn and instead seek to funnel the wealth creation of the United States into the hands of an elitist class of the super-wealthy investors that do not create the wealth through their labor. Only the worker creates wealth by producing goods and providing services and not the wealthy investor that profits exclusively from the labor of others.
What is your proof, exactly--from a neutral source--that "it's only a question of time" until the American population equals the current population of India or China? And, while we are at it, what is your proof that America is "responsible for the deaths of over 2 million" Iraqi citizens? (By the way, the word, "responsible," is really a weasel word in this context. Responsible how, exactly?) Do you suppose it is possible to explain anything that you do not care for in terms other than racism? For instance, is it just possible, in your opinion, that most of us oppose unrestricted, illegal immigration to this country--very much different than what Ellis Island symbolized--and that the fact that those coming here illegally, across our southern border, are "typically mixed-race Hispanic Catholics," is entirely beside the point? (For the record, I am of mixed race also--seven-eighths Caucasian, and one-eighth Native American--but so what?) I find it most interesting that you would consider the Contras to have been mere "terrorists." I suppose that just confirms the old saying that one man's freedom fighter is another man's "terrorist." If you do not like the way the law is written, as concerning disability claims, you should probably work to have it changed. But to impute evil motives to those who wrote the law is quite another matter... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 7, 2015 14:10:42 GMT
The VA and the veteran should be working together to determine if a disability claim is valid and the extent of the disability. The laws should support that but they do not. The laws are written to "DENY, DENY, DENY" the disability claim in the hopes that eventually a disabled veteran will eventually give up. The laws are written to "screw the veteran in every way possible" to minimize any government liability for the harm it has caused the veteran. A compassionate Congress that actually cared about the veterans would never have written the laws they way they are. That is the point you miss.
I choked over the words "Reaganite... moral clarity" as I recalled the arming of terrorists in Nicaragua by the Reagan adminstration. How supporting terrorists can be equated with morality is beyond my comprehension but Reagan did exactly that in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with "military strength" per se there is when it is used to impose Pax-Americana on other countries. Are you aware, for example, that the US invasion of Iraq resulted in at least ten-times the number of innocent Iraqis dying than all of those claimed to have been murdered under the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein? We can certainly say that Saddam was a "bad man" but what about a country that invades and is responsible for over ten-times as many innocent people dying? We condemn Hitler for murdering over 11 million people but what about a nation that invades another much smaller nation and is responsible for the deaths of over 2 million of it's citizens?
Yes, I fully endorsed the immigration through Ellis Island although I'm aware of some limited problems with it created by disrepectful adminstration officials in some cases. Those immigrating through Ellis Island were often treated more like cattle than as people but at least they were allowed to enter the country legally. Those immigrants were the "tired, .... poor, .... huddled masses yearning to breathe free" from other countries but they were predominately WASP's immigrating from Northern Europe with a much smaller minority of Irish and Italian Catholics and a few European Jews. Why don't we welcome the "tired, .... poor, .... huddled masses yearning to breathe free" from Mexico and Latin America today is the question I'd ask but of course I know the answer already. It's because they're typically mixed-race Hispanic Catholics.
The issue isn't "if" the US population will reach the size of China or India but instead when. It's going to happen and it's only a question of time. The key is how do we address it economically and we won't be able to based upon current right-wing economic principles that ignore the "natural right of property" based upon the labor of the persn and instead seek to funnel the wealth creation of the United States into the hands of an elitist class of the super-wealthy investors that do not create the wealth through their labor. Only the worker creates wealth by producing goods and providing services and not the wealthy investor that profits exclusively from the labor of others.
What is your proof, exactly--from a neutral source--that "it's only a question of time" until the American population equals the current population of India or China? And, while we are at it, what is your proof that America is "responsible for the deaths of over 2 million" Iraqi citizens? (By the way, the word, "responsible," is really a weasel word in this context. Responsible how, exactly?) Do you suppose it is possible to explain anything that you do not care for in terms other than racism? For instance, is it just possible, in your opinion, that most of us oppose unrestricted, illegal immigration to this country--very much different than what Ellis Island symbolized--and that the fact that those coming here illegally, across our southern border, are "typically mixed-race Hispanic Catholics," is entirely beside the point? (For the record, I am of mixed race also--seven-eighths Caucasian, and one-eighth Native American--but so what?) I find it most interesting that you would consider the Contras to have been mere "terrorists." I suppose that just confirms the old saying that one man's freedom fighter is another man's "terrorist." If you do not like the way the law is written, as concerning disability claims, you should probably work to have it changed. But to impute evil motives to those who wrote the law is quite another matter...
According to the World Bank, that I would expect to be a neutral source, the population growth of the United States is roughly 0.7% over recent years so based upon the current US population we're adding well over 2 million people this year alone.
data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW
Of course because this is based upon a percentage as the population increases so does the number of additional people that are added to the US population annually. It is not linear growth but instead its exponential growth. As long as population growth is a positive number, and it always has been for the US, it results in an ever growing population indefinately and eventually the US population will exceed a billion people and more. That's just a function of math.
First we must clarify that I stated the US invasion of Iraq "resulted in" and not that the US was directly "responsible for" over ten times as many deaths of innocent Iraqis than Saddam's regime. Iraq Body Count, that only addressed confirmed deaths provided documentation of 132,000 to 152,000 innocent Iraqis dying because of the US invasion. The different numbers (132,000 v 152,000) reflect possible duplication where it was impossible to determine if two reported deaths with the identical name were the same person or two different people.
www.iraqbodycount.org/
While the number of Iraqi deaths under Saddam varies from 1/4 milion to 1/2 million the vast majority of those related to either kurds that joined the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War (where the US supported Iraq) or to armed rebellion agianst the government of Iraq by Kurds or Shi'ites. Those that die during an armed insurrection against the government are not innocent people.
In the end Saddam was ultimately convicted of murdering 148 Shi'ites that were apparently involved in an assassination attempt against him even though those 148 people had been convicted of involvement by a (kangaroo) court and executed under the law. While the numbers vary widely on how many innocent Iraqis might have died under Saddam, excluding the 148, they aren't documented to my knowledge and anyone involved in an armed revolt against the government was not an "innocent" person. In the end after many allegations of mass murder there was apparently only enough evidence to support the fact that Saddam "murdered 148 innocent" Iraqis. That does not include "war crimes" such as using poisonous gas against the kurds when they were in armed rebellion agianst his regime.
We don't have unrestricted illegal immigration. We have highly restricted illegal immigration.
Well over 400,000 individuals attempting to enter the US illegally along the US Mexico border are stopped by the Border Patrol and roughly 400,000 to 500,000 that do managed to enter the country are deported annually. Many more are deterred from even making an attempt to enter the United States because of the difficulties and dangers of attempting to enter the United States. The number that can be stopped and deported is basically limited by Congressional funding but we need to understand that there are "diminishing returns" when it comes to spending (i.e. doubling the expendature does not equate to doubling the effectiveness).
I oppose "illegal immigration. I support "legal immigration" because it benefits the immigrants, the US citizens, the economy, and the United States. Immigration has always been beneficial to the Unites States and we are a nation of immigrants. You and I are both the results of "immigration" so why would we, and what right do we have, to prevent others from immigrating to the United States? As Thomas Jefferson expressed every person has a "right of expatriation" which is the right to immigrate from one's country of birth to another country, that cannot rightfully be infringed upon by statutory law.
The often used argument that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a false dichotomy as it assumes that the freedom fighter must engage in acts of terrorism which is false. Targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination, kidnapping civilians, torturing civilians, executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat, raping women, indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses, seizing civilian property, burning civilian houses in captured towns were not just the alleged acts of the Contras but were encouraged by the CIA.
"In his affidavit to the World Court, former contra Edgar Chamorro testified that "The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to...kill, kidnap, rob and torture..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#Human_rights_violations
It should also be noted that the Reagan Adminstration continued support the Contras well after Congress had expressly prohibited any US support under the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 9, 2015 18:14:11 GMT
What is your proof, exactly--from a neutral source--that "it's only a question of time" until the American population equals the current population of India or China? And, while we are at it, what is your proof that America is "responsible for the deaths of over 2 million" Iraqi citizens? (By the way, the word, "responsible," is really a weasel word in this context. Responsible how, exactly?) Do you suppose it is possible to explain anything that you do not care for in terms other than racism? For instance, is it just possible, in your opinion, that most of us oppose unrestricted, illegal immigration to this country--very much different than what Ellis Island symbolized--and that the fact that those coming here illegally, across our southern border, are "typically mixed-race Hispanic Catholics," is entirely beside the point? (For the record, I am of mixed race also--seven-eighths Caucasian, and one-eighth Native American--but so what?) I find it most interesting that you would consider the Contras to have been mere "terrorists." I suppose that just confirms the old saying that one man's freedom fighter is another man's "terrorist." If you do not like the way the law is written, as concerning disability claims, you should probably work to have it changed. But to impute evil motives to those who wrote the law is quite another matter...
According to the World Bank, that I would expect to be a neutral source, the population growth of the United States is roughly 0.7% over recent years so based upon the current US population we're adding well over 2 million people this year alone.
data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW
Of course because this is based upon a percentage as the population increases so does the number of additional people that are added to the US population annually. It is not linear growth but instead its exponential growth. As long as population growth is a positive number, and it always has been for the US, it results in an ever growing population indefinately and eventually the US population will exceed a billion people and more. That's just a function of math.
First we must clarify that I stated the US invasion of Iraq "resulted in" and not that the US was directly "responsible for" over ten times as many deaths of innocent Iraqis than Saddam's regime. Iraq Body Count, that only addressed confirmed deaths provided documentation of 132,000 to 152,000 innocent Iraqis dying because of the US invasion. The different numbers (132,000 v 152,000) reflect possible duplication where it was impossible to determine if two reported deaths with the identical name were the same person or two different people.
www.iraqbodycount.org/
While the number of Iraqi deaths under Saddam varies from 1/4 milion to 1/2 million the vast majority of those related to either kurds that joined the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War (where the US supported Iraq) or to armed rebellion agianst the government of Iraq by Kurds or Shi'ites. Those that die during an armed insurrection against the government are not innocent people.
In the end Saddam was ultimately convicted of murdering 148 Shi'ites that were apparently involved in an assassination attempt against him even though those 148 people had been convicted of involvement by a (kangaroo) court and executed under the law. While the numbers vary widely on how many innocent Iraqis might have died under Saddam, excluding the 148, they aren't documented to my knowledge and anyone involved in an armed revolt against the government was not an "innocent" person. In the end after many allegations of mass murder there was apparently only enough evidence to support the fact that Saddam "murdered 148 innocent" Iraqis. That does not include "war crimes" such as using poisonous gas against the kurds when they were in armed rebellion agianst his regime.
We don't have unrestricted illegal immigration. We have highly restricted illegal immigration.
Well over 400,000 individuals attempting to enter the US illegally along the US Mexico border are stopped by the Border Patrol and roughly 400,000 to 500,000 that do managed to enter the country are deported annually. Many more are deterred from even making an attempt to enter the United States because of the difficulties and dangers of attempting to enter the United States. The number that can be stopped and deported is basically limited by Congressional funding but we need to understand that there are "diminishing returns" when it comes to spending (i.e. doubling the expendature does not equate to doubling the effectiveness).
I oppose "illegal immigration. I support "legal immigration" because it benefits the immigrants, the US citizens, the economy, and the United States. Immigration has always been beneficial to the Unites States and we are a nation of immigrants. You and I are both the results of "immigration" so why would we, and what right do we have, to prevent others from immigrating to the United States? As Thomas Jefferson expressed every person has a "right of expatriation" which is the right to immigrate from one's country of birth to another country, that cannot rightfully be infringed upon by statutory law.
The often used argument that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a false dichotomy as it assumes that the freedom fighter must engage in acts of terrorism which is false. Targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination, kidnapping civilians, torturing civilians, executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat, raping women, indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses, seizing civilian property, burning civilian houses in captured towns were not just the alleged acts of the Contras but were encouraged by the CIA.
"In his affidavit to the World Court, former contra Edgar Chamorro testified that "The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to...kill, kidnap, rob and torture..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#Human_rights_violations
It should also be noted that the Reagan Adminstration continued support the Contras well after Congress had expressly prohibited any US support under the law.
Your observation that is is "just a function of math" that the American population will eventually reach the billion-plus mark is not entirely true. That "math" is supplemented by the mere assumption that the current rate of population growth will never decline. Actually, what you said--and I quote--is that the US "is responsible for the deaths of over 2 million of [Iraq's] citizens." (Bold added) Apparently, you believe that the murder--not the mere killing, but the murder--of the Kurds by Saddam was perfectly justified. And your preference for "highly restricted" illegal immigration, over "unrestricted" illegal immigration, is very telling. I would prefer that illegal immigration--which, of course, will never be stopped to the tune of 100 percent--should be diminished to a mere trickle, as it once was. Once again, you have expressed your severe distaste for "statutory law," as if there were something essentially wrong with that. And yes, we are, indeed, "a nation of immigrants." But we are also a nation of laws. And I certainly do not support immigration at the expense of the law--"statutory" or otherwise.
If some of the Contras acted horrendously, I certainly do not support that. But I did support the Contras' pushback against the Sandanistas. Why should anyone (except a Marxist) support a Marxist government? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 10, 2015 12:21:30 GMT
Your observation that is is "just a function of math" that the American population will eventually reach the billion-plus mark is not entirely true. That "math" is supplemented by the mere assumption that the current rate of population growth will never decline. Actually, what you said--and I quote--is that the US "is responsible for the deaths of over 2 million of [Iraq's] citizens." (Bold added) Apparently, you believe that the murder--not the mere killing, but the murder--of the Kurds by Saddam was perfectly justified. And your preference for "highly restricted" illegal immigration, over "unrestricted" illegal immigration, is very telling. I would prefer that illegal immigration--which, of course, will never be stopped to the tune of 100 percent--should be diminished to a mere trickle, as it once was. Once again, you have expressed your severe distaste for "statutory law," as if there were something essentially wrong with that. And yes, we are, indeed, "a nation of immigrants." But we are also a nation of laws. And I certainly do not support immigration at the expense of the law--"statutory" or otherwise.
If some of the Contras acted horrendously, I certainly do not support that. But I did support the Contras' pushback against the Sandanistas. Why should anyone (except a Marxist) support a Marxist government?
I'm unaware of the US ever experiencing negative population growth with the possible exception of those time periods where deseases introduced from European immigrants resulted in the massive deaths of the native population. While I don't have numbers for how many Native Americans died due to the plagues (e.g. smallpox) introduced from European immigrants I do know that 90% of the Native Hawaiian population died from those plagues.
I'm not sure where you pulled a quotation from me stating US responsibility for the deaths of 2 million innocent people but it certainly didn't relate to Iraq. It could have related to Vietnam because the US was directly responsible for preventing the internationally supervised democratic re-unification vote of Vietman in 1956 and an estimated 2 million innocent Vietnamese died during the 2nd Indo-China (Vietnam) War. In Vietnam the US was directly responsible for the deaths because the entire Vietnam War would have been avoided by a simple democratic vote of the people. Of course "responsible for" and "resulted in" are relative terms that can overlap. If I start the fire in a vacant building and a firefighter dies fighting the fire am I "responsible" for that death or did the fire I started merely "result" in that death?
When there is an armed insurrection against the lawful government then the government does have the legal authority to suppress the insurrection. When the Kurds were in armed insurrection the Iraqi government under Saddam did have the legal authority to suppress the insurrection. What the Iraqi government, under the rule of Saddam, was guilty of is using chemical weapons against the Kurds, a violation of international law (that you don't believe in), but the killing of the Kurds by other means was "acceptable" under international laws and customs of war. In short killing the Kurds was "acceptable" under international laws and customs of war but how that killing was accomplished was not.
Under the former Bush Adminstration the number of "illegal" immigrants entering the United States peaked at well over 1 million per year. Under the Obama Adminstration it's never exceeded 500,000. Statistically we're twice as effective at restricting illegal immigration today than we were under the prior adminstration.
Of interest is that many on the "right" like to reference "history" in claiming that Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower effectively used deportation that resulted in over 13 million "illegal" being deported (or leaving the US under threat of deportation) but that is a historical myth according to FactCheck.org's research.
www.factcheck.org/2010/07/hoover-truman-ike-mass-deporters/
We can also note that many of the deportation practices employed by Operation Wetback often referenced by those on the "right" under the Eisenhower were unconstitutional and cannot be employed today.
I have a "severe distaste" for statutory laws that violate the US Constitution and the rights of the person. Do you really have a problem with that?
The atrocities (acts of terrorism) committed by the Contras are well documented and the commission of these atrocities was the approved mode of operation endorsed by the CIA as leaders of the Contras later revealed.
As for your question, "Why should anyone (except a Marxist) support a Marxist government?" the answer is simple. The "Right of Self-Determination" of the people of Nicaragua. The Sandanista government was the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. Do you oppose democracy?
|
|
