BF2S Forums Appeasement...

Dilbert_X wrote:

I believe the post was referencing rendition flights and Gitmo specifically.

You just made that up, rendition was to many places besides Gitmo, Gitmo wasn't mentioned in the OP.

Read points one and six in the OP. The word "and" (emphasized for you above) means a distinction between the two, not a combination of. Otherwise, it would have said "...rendition flights to Gitmo specifically."

Er...from your own links:

Deutche Welle wrote:

Poland and the Czech Republic have voiced willingness for the US to install parts of a global missile defense system on their territory. Experts say the project is technically underdeveloped and politically risky.

You might have missed it...it was the first two sentences on the page. In boldface.

BBC wrote:

Have Poland and the Czech Republic agreed to the deployment?

Not finally. The Czech government agrees in principle but is negotiating conditions, such as assurances that this is not directed at Russia and will not affect Czech sovereignty. Poland is also sympathetic but wants further discussions. There is some opposition in both countries to the plan.

This was down the page a bit. Some opposition, but both countries either agree or are sympathetic, just want to work out details.

Pravda link no workee for me right now.

If by "peripheral" you mean "directly tied to the crime in question", then yeah.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-17 07:42:59)

Deutche Welle wrote:

Poland and the Czech Republic have voiced willingness for the US to install

FEOS wrote:

Poland and the Czech Republic have requested those sites be placed in their countries

Sorry, voicing willingness to accept a US plan and actively requesting are two different things.

Pravda link no workee for me right now.

Probably major league baseball affecting your internet, I can help.

A solid majority of Poles continue to oppose hosting a contentious U.S. missile defense base, according to a poll released Tuesday, a day after the president voiced his strongest support to date for the plan.
The survey, conducted by CBOS, a publicly funded institute based in Warsaw, showed that 55 percent of those questioned oppose siting the base on Polish territory - a slight fall in opposition over the previous month, when those opposed was 60 percent.

The poll also showed that 28 percent support the plan - up slightly from the 26 percent measured in the earlier poll.

CBOS said the poll, collected June 29-July 2, appeared to have been influenced by a Russian offer to let the U.S. set up its system in Azerbaijan because it was interpreted as a sign of accord that eased fears of a new arms race.

Since then, however, tensions have again flared over the plan, with Russia on the weekend saying it was pulling out of a key European arms control deal. For months, the Kremlin had threatened the step in response to Washington's proposal to build the defense shield on its doorstep.

The U.S. wants to place 10 interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic, both former Warsaw Pact countries, arguing it will protect most of Europe from long-rage missile strikes from Iran.

Going against the will of your people to place them in harms way in response to a request from another country is appeasement in my view.

Actually, it was probably internet filters, as I was at work. And what would MLB have to do with internet performance?

Far out! A Pentagoon posting in BF2S from the Pentagone!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother's_Little_Helper
Major league baseball are reading your thoughts right now. Not me, I have my hat as you know.

As are "willingness to accept" and "getting it shoved down your throat".

The govt are willing to accept, the people are getting it shoved down their throat.
Anyway you said 'requested' which was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for … _Research_(Poland)
Good enough for me. I can't be bothered finding any more articles.

And how are the people of Poland being placed in harm's way?

Well the Russians have withdrawn from various weapons treaties as a result, and I'm reasonably sure stated the missile and radar sites will be first target status in the event the US and Russia kick off.

If by "peripheral" you mean "directly tied to the crime in question", then yeah.

By peripheral I meant the grunts in the trenches, not the big cheeses in the centre calling the shots - or really calling which part of the convention on torture to ignore.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-18 02:31:51)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Actually, it was probably internet filters, as I was at work. And what would MLB have to do with internet performance?

Far out! A Pentagoon posting in BF2S from the Pentagone!

Who's throwing out insults now?

As are "willingness to accept" and "getting it shoved down your throat".

The govt are willing to accept, the people are getting it shoved down their throat.
Anyway you said 'requested' which was wrong.

And what you said was equally wrong.

And how are the people of Poland being placed in harm's way?

Well the Russians have withdrawn from various weapons treaties as a result, and I'm reasonably sure stated the missile and radar sites will be first target status in the event the US and Russia kick off.

Which would make no sense militarily or politically. So the Russians are simply threatening the Poles for being more friendly to the US and NATO in general than they are with the Russians. That's not at all more belligerent, now is it?

If by "peripheral" you mean "directly tied to the crime in question", then yeah.

By peripheral I meant the grunts in the trenches, not the big cheeses in the centre calling the shots - or really calling which part of the convention on torture to ignore.

So instead of convicting those who actually perpetrated the crime, you think everyone up the chain of command for that person, clear up to the President, should be convicted? So if you tell someone it's OK to rob a store, and they do it, are you then liable for their actions? It's not illegal to give an illegal order...it is, however, illegal to follow one. It's certainly illegal to carry a legal order too far without questioning the limits and ensuring you are still within the intent of the order...which is what happened in those cases.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Who's throwing out insults now?

Oh cheer up, goon is hardly a serious insult. It was meant jokingly.

Fair enough.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And what you said was equally wrong.

I can live with being wrong if it means you admit you were wrong too

Some of us are far more apt to admit when we are wrong than others...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Which would make no sense militarily or politically. So the Russians are simply threatening the Poles for being more friendly to the US and NATO in general than they are with the Russians. That's not at all more belligerent, now is it?

Ah you mean like how Venezuela is cosying up with the communists and the Americans are getting all excited?

I don't think the US has threatened Venezuela with military force, have we?

Dilbert_X wrote:

So instead of convicting those who actually perpetrated the crime, you think everyone up the chain of command for that person, clear up to the President, should be convicted?

Very much so - if they gave illegal orders - which it seems they did. Those who perpetrated the crime should also be dealt with.
Are you saying only the guards at Treblinka should have been hanged, but those who gave the orders let off?

Depends on what the orders were. If I were to give one of my troops an order to do something clearly in violation of the GC and he didn't do it, I'm not guilty of anything but stupidity (I'm sure you'll make use of that out of context later...) and he's guilty of nothing, not even failure to follow an order, as the order wasn't lawful. But if I were to give an order that IS lawful (interrogate the prisoner, for example) and then he carries it too far, it's on him, not me. The troop involved was bound by the LOAC and UCMJ to stay within the bounds...if he strays outside the bounds, it's not because of the order he was given, but his own poor judgment.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So if you tell someone it's OK to rob a store, and they do it, are you then liable for their actions?

If I'm in a position of authority over that person then yes.
'Go kill X' Is incitement to murder, which I understand is a crime.

Your first point, yes, to a degree. The individual is always responsible for determining whether their actions are a violation of LOAC (which everyone in the military is trained on every year, if not more often).
As to the second point, it's only a crime if it's clear that you wanted that person killed. If you just say to someone "I wish X were dead" and that person goes and kills them, there's no proof that you actually wanted that to happen, so you are not an accessory to the crime. The criminal's judgment is a key discriminator in those types of cases.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It's certainly illegal to carry a legal order too far without questioning the limits and ensuring you are still within the intent of the order...which is what happened in those cases.

Carrying out an illegal order - to torture somene - is also illegal.
Its been well blurred since but its clear Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc intended captives should be tortured.

If it's "been well blurred", then you can't say definitively that the intent was they be tortured...particularly from that level. I agree that many times, the immediate leadership is let off the hook too easily...just as many times, they are made a scapegoat inappropriately.

The problem with using the term "torture" is that it isn't clearly defined. Clearly what happened in Afghanistan was torture, no doubt. But many other techniques used to put the one being interrogated at a "position of disadvantage" are not torture...by any definition other than some of the BF2S "experts".

And this now has nothing to do with the OP.
/derail

Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-18 03:12:30)