Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (183692)	3/17/2006 3:49:48 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

but ed says our style democracy is not applicable to iraq given three groups. I agree with Ed. Democracy needs to be stretched to mean less about majority rule and more about minority rights and federal solutions in iraq. Now you wouldnt have to stretch as much if you were talking iran or egypt who have more homogenous populations. Both you and Ed drive me crazy because sometimes you have that democracy fixation and ed because of his vietnam experiences influence on his view of iraq. Yes virginia there can be a good outcome that is neither civil war or western democracy. Both you guys should look for some middle ground on this. Ed isnt Syl and Hawk isnt Paret.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (183692)	3/17/2006 6:51:44 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, you are a bit of a military aficianado so I thought I'd seek your comment. You conveniently wrote: < proper policies undertaken by ANY PRESIDENT towards combatting Islamo-Fascism, as well as prodding the UN to properly perform it's role of being an advocate for democratic values and individual rights and self-determination.> Individual rights and self-determination are interesting concepts within the mob rule of democracy, especially within the military component of that sovereign democratic entity. There is a case which has been lumbering into gear since June last year which has now reached court martial stage. Just what does self-determination mean and where do individual rights start and stop and exactly how tightly does a contract of service to the military hierarchy and their political bosses require somebody to blindly comply with orders? And how do sovereign nations fit together in an era when there is an International Criminal Court icc-cpi.int and Milosevic has just died in custody after years of being tormented by lawyers lucratively acting for the UN? un.org iwpr.net "I was just following orders - sorry about the bomb through the school roof/hospital/wedding/embassy..." doesn't cut it in some circles. Anyway, the stage is set. Enter Malcolm Kendall Smith, RAF officer who refused to go back to Iraq. timesonline.co.uk <...Meanwhile, a U.S. air strike north of Baghdad killed 11 people - most of them women and children, said police and relatives of the victims.... > Ooops, sorry about that folks... theadvertiser.news.com.au So, the pre-trial hearing, which was quick, running only 5 hours although set for a week, was presumably quick because all parties know it's going higher. How high? Should a count martial [the military who gave him the order] decide whether the order they gave was a legitimate order? I would like to handle my own speeding ticket hearings. "Yes Mq, it was fair enough that you were doing 61 kph. It was a good order to give yourself to drive at that speed although you weren't even aware you were doing that speed as it was so slow on such a huge road heading for a 100 kph area 100 metres ahead that you weren't even aware you were speeding and had noticed the speed camera across the road catching people going the OTHER way out of the 100 kph area into the 50 kph area". "Thank you your Honour Mqurice. Shall we have tea afterwards to celebrate the dismissal?" "Jolly good show old chap, see you there." This one could go to the Privy Council, though I suspect he'll be discharged without conviction, with glorious honours and an honourable discharge and awarded a Medal of Merit for services rendered to peace, light, harmony, happiness, health, prosperity, longevity, fun and love. The military is in a quandary though. If they accept his reason for not obeying the order, "It was an illegal order because the war in Iraq is illegal", then they will immediately have an all-volunteer service operating in Iraq. But, they could also find themselves sitting in Milosevic's empty chair at the ICC. No wonder the USA didn't sign up for the court. So, I guess they'll have to make an example of him, which is the traditional military solution to individuals, freedom and self-determination. Ooops, back to the beginning. This could be very, very interesting. Britain might be obliged to withdraw from Iraq, on orders of the Privy Council. Tony Blair can't just maraud around the world illegally supporting blowing up of women and children as happened [see above]. The end of serfdom might be coming and your claimed support for freedom that means freedom for self-determination and individual rights might get an airing. I doubt it. Too few people are in favour of freedom. People say they are, but when their opinions are more closely examined, they don't really mean freedom, individual rights and self-determination. They are more like the famed founding fathers who wrote the 'born equal' cant while owning slaves. While my father was in war against Germany in the desert, his cousin was in prison for advocating against war. methodist.org.nz I think my father should have been shooting at the judge, not the Germans on the other side of the world. Might as well fight for freedom at home. Of if not shooting at the judge, refusing to help until the vaunted freedom of his cousin was allowed by the scummy hypocritical rulers of state serfs. methodist.org.nz Mqurice

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (183692)	3/17/2006 7:33:37 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Freedom of speech in New Zealand: dnzb.govt.nz Worth dying for? < The day after the Second World War was declared in September 1939, Burton and two others condemned it before a crowd of 200 outside Parliament. Under emergency regulations only hours old, expressing such views was unlawful and all three were arrested. Burton was visited in gaol by the deputy prime minister, Peter Fraser, who was worried that Burton, a returned soldier and a charismatic speaker, might attract the nucleus of a large and embarrassing anti-war movement. Burton rejected Fraser’s plea to desist and resumed speaking in Allen Street. He was arrested and fined three times in the next four months, and after a large meeting in February 1940 at Pigeon Park, was sentenced to a month’s hard labour. On his release he went straight back to the speaking podium and was imprisoned for a further three months. When he was in prison Nell Burton spoke from a soap box at the Basin Reserve and carried on their work in the parish. By June, Burton’s permit to speak at the Basin Reserve was cancelled, poster parades were banned, and street speakers were forced indoors. Subsequently, Burton and 10 other CPS members spoke briefly at Pigeon Park before being arrested. On this occasion Burton was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Burton was more worried about his survival in the Methodist church. In February 1940 the church had determined that the pulpit should not be used to encourage either recruitment or resistance to military service. Burton, in prison, regarded the manifesto as a slap in the face and wrote A testament of peace , an implicitly pacifist doctrine of worship on which he announced he would base his future ministerings. At the 1942 Methodist Church of New Zealand conference Burton was charged with refusing to accept the discipline of the church. He appealed to the delegates, but after a long and acrimonious debate they voted 70 to 45 to expel him. Significantly, over 100 delegates abstained. Burton was devastated. He found work with a frozen products firm and in June became editor of the CPS’s bulletin. In his first issue he commented on the recent sedition trial and acquittal of A. C. Barrington and printed a mild anti-war poem. The controller of censorship, who intercepted the newsletter, considered it subversive. Burton faced three charges of editing, publishing and attempting to publish a subversive document. At his Supreme Court trial on 23 October 1942, Burton argued for his democratic right to think and speak as conscience dictated. Justice Archibald Blair disagreed, telling the jury it was a time when the mouths of ‘cranks’ would have to shut. The jury found Burton guilty, but recommended mercy. Under the emergency regulations the maximum sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment, but Blair invoked a rarely used provision in the 1910 Crimes Amendment Act and sentenced Burton to 2½ years. He was offered immediate freedom if he agreed to refrain from writing or speaking on pacifism, but he rejected the offer. International appeals from pacifists and theologians failed. Burton served his full term, less 11 months’ remission for good behaviour, mostly in Napier prison away from his family. He spent his time gardening and writing. During his absence Nell Burton took a leadership role in the CPS as well as bringing up their two children > Should orders of people purveying such "freedom" be obeyed? Mqurice