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: geode00 who wrote (198899)	8/23/2006 6:08:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

In your case, in the US of A, if someone threatened you and the keystone cops failed to to anything and you killed the person based on a threat, I suspect you would indeed go to prison for manslaughter if not murder. If it was self defense he would probably get off. If the threat was entirely verbal, and the threatening person was casually shot than you probably would get a murder or manslaughter charge. If a nation had a government that routinely made not even the slightest effort against people making such threats, and which generally didn't enforce the peace than at some point that government would likely to be voted out, or barring that violently removed, either through a revolution, a coup, or just a general decent in to anarchy. The world scene is more of an anarchy than it is an ordered society. Nations make agreements and have forums and institutions to discuss problems, but there is no world government, and no official world police. If a nation makes a believable threat than the threatened nation is justified in responding to that threat.

To: geode00 who wrote (198899)	8/23/2006 6:19:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I said that the LAW is simply an agreement between people at a specific geographic location at a specific point in time and nothing more. If there is no agreement, there is no law. Which means that is no agreement on the "law" between two parties, then neither party is beholden to abide by it, right? Which means that, since neither Al Qai'da, nor Hizbullah, have signed the Geneva Conventions, then there is no need to worry about applying "law" to their cases. In your case, in the US of A, if someone threatened you and the keystone cops failed to to anything and you killed the person based on a threat, I suspect you would indeed go to prison for manslaughter if not murder. In your "perfect world" I'm sure that any sort of application of the right of self-defense would be a capital offense. And if the assailant were to survive the attempt at self-defense, you're applaud them as the actual victim. Hell, you'd probably give money to their defense. But were my "gang" just as powerful, or even more so, than the rival gangs who were foolish enough to threaten me, as well as more powerful than the prevailing law enforcement" agencies, they sure as hell are not going to arrest me. Especially if it was their very unwillingness to enforce the law against those who threatened to exterminate my family that was the reason I found myself obligated to trigger my action of self-defense. That's the way the REAL WORLD, outside of the US and maybe a few of the more developed democracies, ACTUALLY IS. Hell, it was the way it was in the early days of the US, for that matter. And to bring this into relevant discussion, who's going to "arrest" Israel for defending itself against this hostile "gang" of fanatics (Hizbullah) who continue to vow the destruction of their "gang"? After all, the UN can't even seem to muster the will to sanction Hizbullah, or physically disarm them, let alone attempt to sanction, or disarm, Israel. And Israel is a soveriegn state.. Hizbullah is an illegal armed militia that does not vow fielty to the Lebanese government when it comes to how they decide to use military force. That's why we need PROGRESS not REGRESS (is that a word?) which is why everyone should be a progressive and not a regressive. Until human beings become thoroughly civilized through education and practice, we will always be at war on one pretext or another. Then I suggest you direct your efforts towards those who would deny the people they rule over the opportunity to be "progressive" and not aggressive. But I have a feeling that they'd either tell you to pack sand, or they'd just turn on the charm and explain away why they are unwilling to hold direct, free and fair, elections. And you'd just sit there, mesmerized, and nod your head to every excuse they provide (US is the great satan.. Israel is a terrorist state.. etc) for why their people live in poverty, while their government pursues naked aggression against another country. And lady, I'm all for educating and "civilizing" people so that they can look forward to a future of prosperity for themselves and their children. But there are some VERY EVIL powers within thier own socieities who don't seem to think this is very important. Which means sometimes the old order has to be torn down to the foundation and completely rebuilt so that the values I hope we both share can take root and end this interminable cycle of conflict. Hawk