Human shield gets Fined?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by straffo
ask your squaddie they perhaps have better memory than you.

Typical straffo post.  Making claims, but not having the crap to back them up.    -yawn-

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by Rude
What a ridiculous statement.....why in the world would we extend rights which are specific to the citizens of a sovereign nation?

Your one of those one world goverment folks aren't ya?

Actually, I'm a citizen of a country which extends the protections afforded by our Constitution to ALL people within our borders and to ALL people who commit offences against our nation's property and interests overseas.  We see very little need to divide the world into "us" and "them".

We do not draw a distinction as to who is entitled to the inalienable rights available to all people based on where they may have been born or how lucky there may have been that the INS chose to process their citizenship application in a favourable manner.

The United States does not have a monopoly on determing what is moral, legal or just.  All I meant to point out from my previous posts is that if the United States ever hopes to convince those who label it the Great Satan and insist on self-detonation to try and hurt the US that it is the land of "freedom", then it cannot say that such "freedom" ends 12 miles off of the US coast.

And since Gulf War II wasn't, apparently, really about WMD but rather about getting rid of a tyrannical dictator, what would you say to Saddam if he justified all of his actions on the basis of "Why would I extend rights to those in Iraq who I choose not to extend rights to?".  Admittedly, a far more extreme example and not the best analogy, but following your logic, can a sovereign nation therefore choose to do whatever it wishes within its borders regardless of how immoral, unethical or illegal (in a universal sense) those actions are?

[straffo]

If you stand by your words what can I say ...

Coward should apply I thnik.

[MJHerman]

Martlet,

I have to say that I just caught up on some of your previous posts regarding the Geneva Convention, the choices made in the US not to follow it or the Bill of Rights, etc.

In re-reading them, I realized that while I may disagree with your conclusions, I cannot take issue with the manner in which you make your analysis and present your arguments.  I give you a lot of credit for that, for believing what you believe in, and for backing it up in a thoughful and mature manner.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by MJHerman
Martlet,

I have to say that I just caught up on some of your previous posts regarding the Geneva Convention, the choices made in the US not to follow it or the Bill of Rights, etc.

In re-reading them, I realized that while I may disagree with your conclusions, I cannot take issue with the manner in which you make your analysis and present your arguments.  I give you a lot of credit for that, for believing what you believe in, and for backing it up in a thoughful and mature manner.

Thanks.  I don't think anyone has called me thoughtful or mature before, though.

[MJHerman]

OK, I confess, it was just my attempt to kiss some a** so that you don't blow me out of the AH virutal skies

As an aside, is Martlet a reference to the UK version of the F4F?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by MJHerman
OK, I confess, it was just my attempt to kiss some a** so that you don't blow me out of the AH virutal skies

As an aside, is Martlet a reference to the UK version of the F4F?

In a way.  I learned of the name from my college days as a Delta Chi.  The Martlet (bird) was a symbol on the fraternity crest.  Then when I joined AH I thought that since it was also a plane, it could serve a dual purpose.

In the summer, my play time goes way down so you are fairly safe.  Tour 41 (June) was the last time I played regularly.

[Rude]

Originally posted by MJHerman
Actually, I'm a citizen of a country which extends the protections afforded by our Constitution to ALL people within our borders and to ALL people who commit offences against our nation's property and interests overseas.  We see very little need to divide the world into "us" and "them".

We do not draw a distinction as to who is entitled to the inalienable rights available to all people based on where they may have been born or how lucky there may have been that the INS chose to process their citizenship application in a favourable manner.

The United States does not have a monopoly on determing what is moral, legal or just.  All I meant to point out from my previous posts is that if the United States ever hopes to convince those who label it the Great Satan and insist on self-detonation to try and hurt the US that it is the land of "freedom", then it cannot say that such "freedom" ends 12 miles off of the US coast.

And since Gulf War II wasn't, apparently, really about WMD but rather about getting rid of a tyrannical dictator, what would you say to Saddam if he justified all of his actions on the basis of "Why would I extend rights to those in Iraq who I choose not to extend rights to?".  Admittedly, a far more extreme example and not the best analogy, but following your logic, can a sovereign nation therefore choose to do whatever it wishes within its borders regardless of how immoral, unethical or illegal (in a universal sense) those actions are?

Our freedom was not free...it was fought for.

As to what you allow in your country, we allow much the same...I don't agree with giving away freedoms to those who enter our country with ill intent and are prosecuted for crimes committed, but that's just me.

I find it amusing how those outside our borders feel the need to tell us how to live.....oh, btw, have you given up your guns yet?

[MJHerman]

I don't presume to tell others how to live their lives, whether they are my neighbours or whether they live in another country.  My point was that, as a nation and society that most people look up to, the United States tends not to practice what it preaches when it comes to foreign affairs.  

Freedom isn't something you earn.  It is a God giving right inherent at birth.  It is not granted to people at the whim of the state, the courts or the President.  And the only way it can be taken away is in accordance with due process and the rule of law.  You said it yourself...your freedom was fought for....precisely because King George decided to take it away from your forefathers what had been given to them by their mere existence.  You may recall that your ancestors fought a civil war over not only state rights, but also over whether all men (and women) are free.

Either freedom is universal or it isn't.  If US-type freedom is universal (in fact I recall your President making statements about how Gulf War II was about freedom), then it should be extended to everyone and only taken away in accordance with the very laws that you cherish so much and rely on so much to preserve "your" freedom.  If it isn't, then the US should get off it's high horse and call it like it is.  You have the bigger guns, so you can do what you want.  The latter is fine with me too, but if that's the case, cut the rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy" and just say "We do it because we can".

As to my freedom, my founding fathers and the generations since fought to obtain and keep their freedom as well, both on the battlefield and off, as did many people in other democratic societies around this world.  I have also served and continue to serve my country to preserve those freedoms and the ideals that we believe in. So sorry, but no monopoly for you on that either.

As to the whole gun thing...I'm sure your founding fathers specifically intended that every Joe Sixpack should have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon when they wrote the words:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In 1791 that made sense.  In 2003, if you need a gun to protect your person and property, its probably time to consider moving to a new neighbourhood.  Either way I don't care...if you want your guns that's fine.  Just don't pretend that because other societies choose to limit the risks that their children will be gunned down at school or their co-workers will open fire on them that it makes those societies any "less free".

[AWMac]

Fishu you are a fool Sir. Please on behalf of all those that occupy the sane World...PLEASE don't Breed.


Marlet WTG!

[AWMac]

And MJHerman... Stay in CanaDUH and stop trying to recite U.S. Amreica's Laws as if you live here.  BTW how's the French laws doing in Quebec?  Or are they speaking English errr American now?


OWN3D

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by AWMac
And MJHerman... Stay in CanaDUH and stop trying to recite U.S. Amreica's Laws as if you live here.  BTW how's the French laws doing in Quebec?  Or are they speaking English errr American now?


OWN3D

Ahhh, the much anticipated response to any type of discussion where someone disagrees with a point of view.  The "STFU because we Americans know better than everyone else" combined with the standard form insult to anything that is not American.  Combine that with a post to someone where the poster has no idea of my background, and then end result is that a reasonable discussion and exchange of opinions and viewpoints degenerates into embarrassing name calling.  Nonetheless:

1.  My law degree is hanging on the wall of my office.  Where is yours hanging?  Being called to the bar in the State of New York and the Province of Ontario obviously wouldn't qualify me to express MY opinion.  Putting aside law degrees, I am sufficiently well read and take an interest in legal and historical matters enough to be able to express a viewpoint.  Even you want to debate opinions fine...keep it civil and try and form a reasonable argument.  I will read it and respond to it in kind, and we can agree to disagree if need be.

2.  Since you asked, the laws which protect and preserve French in Quebec are doing just fine and are serving their purpose.  Having grown up in Montreal, I benefitted from those laws even though my first language is English.  Those laws forced me to learn a second language which, to this day, I read, write and speak fluently.  Our country respects the cultures and customs of others, and chooses to incorporate them into our society, rather than insulting them.  While it might be a pain in the a** for someone like you to visit a foreign country where the language is not "American", with an attitude like yours don't be surprised if most French Canadians (the majority of whom, by the way, speak French, English and often one or more additional languages), rather than switching to "American" to help you out, insist on continuing in French to your continued bewilderment.

Of course, you could always just say "Blame Canada" and resort to some sort of occupation to free us Canadians from all these ridiculous laws that we live under and "free" us from all of this oppression.

[AWMac]

MJHerman... I was so surprised that your last articlate posting had not ended with "eh?".

During your last retoire in defending your Canadian birthright you disclosed that you were called to the Bar of New York City...such an inquisitive mind I must have but I must ask, Has Canada have a Bar?  Lest not a Military? Nor a form of self Government that excludes the premise of depending upon the USA to defend its shores?

Whoa to Canada if the USA should close it's borders North.  

Then what would be said of Canaduh?

Think before you speak....

[Martlet]

Roughly 25% of policy and politics is law and legality.  The other 75%  is interpretation and opinion.   Wrong and right on politics is subject to your point of view.  Most of the points being bantered back and forth will have no real winner, only on side finally realizing that while they may not agree with the other's point of view, it does hold validity.   It all depends on what kind of a spin you put on it.

Canada thinks taking guns out of the homes will in MJ's words "limit the risk that their children will be gunned down at school or their co-workers will open fire on them".  Fine.  That's an argument that's used quite a bit.  I disagree, though.   Criminals have guns.  Criminals will ALWAYS have guns.  Most guns criminals have are obtained illegally.  I just don't think removing guns will lower the casualty rate.   On the flip side, I don't think having guns will increase your safety, either.  Unless, maybe, you carry it with you at all times.  The bottom line is, I don't think it matters one way or the other.  The only thing it does is infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.  Go after the criminals, not me.

The U.S. acts in it's own best interest.  Period.  Do the people here, and the Government, really care about freedom and democracy for all the world's people?  I honestly believe they do.  I also think that the government's first order of business is to represent me.  Cut the 75% politics away from the war in Afghanistan.  Every country double talks to fit within the 25% legality.  EVERY COUNTRY.  What was the war REALLY about?  I don't think it was just about freeing an oppressed people.  I think that was part of the decision making process, though.  I think it came down to this:

Over the last decade, terrorist activity has been on the rise.  Al Queda had grown, and was running pretty much unchecked globally.   It's obvious target was the U.S.  The taliban was harboring them, so the U.S. took them out.  They removed 60% of Al Queda's command staff.  That's a pretty big hit.  We will try to build the country back up.  Who knows what will happen.  That's the 75% political side again.  We needed to remove them and send a message that we are no longer tolerating this attack on the U.S.

I think we believe freedom IS universal, if you WANT it.  Al Queda doesn't.  What are they?  They don't have a country.  They are a band of thugs and muslim extremists.  They view the west as a threat to their way of life.  We can only be a threat if it's what their people want.  We can't force a person from another country to watch porn, wear tight jeans, and eat McDonalds if they don't want to.   Instead of returning to their countries and educating their people to preserve their beliefs, they fly jets into buildings. How does this help their cause?  It doesn't.  As I said before, they are thugs.  If we step on their "rights" while removing them, I won't shed a tear.  They gave up their rights in my eyes long ago.

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by AWMac
MJHerman... I was so surprised that your last articlate posting had not ended with "eh?".

During your last retoire in defending your Canadian birthright you disclosed that you were called to the Bar of New York City...such an inquisitive mind I must have but I must ask, Has Canada have a Bar?  Lest not a Military? Nor a form of self Government that excludes the premise of depending upon the USA to defend its shores?

Whoa to Canada if the USA should close it's borders North.  

Then what would be said of Canaduh?

Think before you speak....

The quality of some aspects of the U.S. educational system is self-evident from your response.

"articlate"  -  Please send me an "American" dictionary so that I can look this word up.

"Bar of New York City" - Doesn't exist.  But then you would know that had you read the post and seen "State of New York".

And your right, Canada doesn't have a Bar.  Nor does the United States.  You see, since both of us are federal countries, such matters are dealt with on a state/provincial level.  But then again you would know that because you have obviously been thinking before you speak.

And of course, one always needs to include the slander against the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.  We all know that but for the mighty US military those Iraqi T-72s might right now be rolling down the streets of downtown Toronto.

Buddy, put in a call to the Department of Commerce in Washington D.C. and ask them if they think it would be a good idea to close your nothern border so that no imports/exports move between the two countries.  Better yet, ask them who your largest trading partner is.  Even better, have them send you some information on where all those fancy parts come from that get put into Fords, GMs and Chevys or who supplies the US construction industry with a good chunk of its lumber or who supplies a TON of Hydro power to the US Northeast (Hint:  They speak a bit of French).  I'm sure that they could give you that information as well as whole bunch more which you may find interesting.

Fortunately for both of our countries your politicians and ours both realize that while there may be differences of opinion, we need each other.