Comments Posted By John
Displaying 101 To 110 Of 120 Comments
FRANCE SURRENDERS: ISRAEL TO FIGHT ON
I just read that Israel shook up its military command structure in Lebanon so as to make it more aggressive. This, combined with the Cabinet decision to launch a wider ground offensive, potentially indicates that they are FINALLY taking the gloves off. It's about freakin' time. Up to this point, the Israeli prime minister has been less that Churchillian. I would love to see Netenyahu in charge of this. He wouldn't be messing around.
Comment Posted By John On 9.08.2006 @ 12:52
Bush is in the right here. This is one big war that will last decades, and Israel is our strongest and most dependable ally. If we lose against Hezbollah, then Iran, Syria, North Korea, and the "Arab street" will only take it as a sign of weakness and be encouraged to flout us more openly. The only way to deal with a bully in the schoolyard is to beat him down mercilessly, thereby showing his weaker supporters the fate that awaits them if they continue in their ways. At the end of the day, its the U.S., Israel, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and perhaps Canada, the Poles and few others against the evil-doers. We may as well get on with it. I would rather fight them now than wait until they have nukes. It's a no-brainer, except to the blame-America first idiots on the left.
Comment Posted By John On 9.08.2006 @ 12:31
FAIR IS FAIR: IDF BRINGS SHAME TO ITSELF
Rick--
With all respect, no. As you will see from a brief look at Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Convention III, the only "parties" to the agreement are the "High Contracting Parties" that have actually executed and ratified the document. The use of the phrase "High Contracting Parties" with three capitalized letters indicates that it has a specific definition limited to those nation-states that have signed it. There is no serious debate about the fact that Hezbollah as an entity is not a party to the Geneva Conventions. That puts us back to the analysis in my last comment.
Comment Posted By John On 8.08.2006 @ 13:51
Rick--
You are incorrect. I think there are at least two problems with your analysis.
First, Article 2 of Convention III sets forth the situations in which the Convention applies. It states, in relevant part, as follows:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
Of course, Hezbollah is not a party to the Convention. Thus, Israel would only be bound by the Convention with respect to Hezbollah "if [Hezbollah] accepts and applies the provision thereof." I think we can all agree without going into the truly gory details that Hezbollah has never accepted or applied any provisions of the Geneva Convetion. Thus, it is clear from Article 2 alone that Convention III does not apply with respect to captured Hezbollah terrorists.
Second, you misapply Article 4 Section 1. Lebanon is not a "Party to the conflict." Thus, it is irrelevant whether they consider Hezbollah to be a legitimate militia forming "part of [the Lebanese] armed forces." Moreover, even if Lebanon did become a "Party to the conflict," I don't think it is credible to suggest that Hezbollah is a militia that is "part of [the Lebanese] armed forces." That would fly in the face of the fact that the Lebanese armed forces have been totally unwilling or unable to control the southern part of Lebanon. If Hezbollah were truly part of the Lebanese armed forces, such a situation would not exist. Simply because Lebanon might say that Hezbollah is a militia that is part of the Lebanese armed forces does not make it so. Such a conclusion would also fly in the face of the U.N. resolution stating that Hezbollah must be disarmed. Further, it flies in the face of the details of the most recent proposals by the Lebanese prime minister, which included an offer to send in Lebanese troops to serve as a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel.
Comments please.
Comment Posted By John On 8.08.2006 @ 13:21
CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS: A REBIRTH
Hehe thanks for including me in the carnival. I was wondering if you could blogroll me? I will do the same for you!
Comment Posted By John On 13.07.2006 @ 23:17
ENJOYING THE ACADEMIC FREEDOM TO BE AN IDIOT
how about the possibility of the US gov setting up the plane crashes into the towers, without necessarily planting bombs as well. The fuel in the planes were sufficient enough to cause the initial heat required to burn everything else and cause the collapse. I do NOT yet "support" this theory, to me it is ONLY a farfetched and radical view, but it still remains a minute possibility. Therefore, this theory, without adequate proof, should NOT be officially taught in Universities, but should be left to the students to discuss amongst themselves... The US government has had a LOOOOONG history of working with the bin Laden family, including Osama, and even training these so called MONSTERS (ex. Sadaam and Osama again... Chaney is making some sweet change through this war, and not just because of the OIL we are taking, but also through defense companies which are supplying the US military for the war on Afghanistan, Iraq, and we all know IRAN and possibly SYRIA which will be coming up shortly... You think that GIGANTIC oil pipeline the "US gov" is building across Afghanistan is only a coincidence ??? How else would the U.S. gain all this "access" to Afghanistan if it weren't for the "TERRORIST" threats which needed to be handled... Mr. Bush has cleverly put the American people into a state of fear and pushed us into a ridiculous national debt... All of these things COULD be coincidences, but maybe we should all think outside of the U.S. media Box for once... And maybe we should also TRY to consider the reasons why the whole god damn world hates us...
Comment Posted By John On 12.09.2006 @ 16:45
the italians are dirty cheaters. there league is corrupt. what makes you think that they will not cheat in the world cup? that call against the aussi's was terrible. i beleive that ref walked home with some cash in his pocket.
Comment Posted By john On 7.05.2007 @ 19:20
THE SPOILED BRAT WING OF THE GOP
Really, what it comes down to is what are your priorities in terms of the importance of each issue, and do you think how those issues are dealt with would be different if the Republicans or Democrats are in charge of Congress (and in 2008, the White House), and, even if you do, would two or four years of having the other party in control make any difference?
Lots of people justafiably see barely any difference between the parties on the immigration issue, because there are politicians from both parties who are either pro or anti the current plans in the Senate. But unless you think the War on Terror really is an overhyped ploy by Republicans to scare the voters, or think having Democrats control the congressional pursestrings in 2007-08 when it comes to funding the war won't make any differnce in the U.S.'s efforts to prevent any future terrorist attacks on our soil, then you really have to think long and hard about staying home in November when it comes time to cast ballots.
Richard Viguerie's piece in the Washington Post lambasting Bush is a 20-year-down-the-line repeat of his writing Ronald Reagan out of the conservative movement because he wasn't hard-line enough to suit Richard. That makes him simply an older, right-wing version of Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, who also takes the my-way-or-the-highway attitude towards failure to follow his marching orders on the left. Kos and his followers are something like 0-for-19 right now in getting candidates they've heavily supported elected to office; if people on the right decide to take the same attitude and say unless you're right on 100 percent of the issues you don't have my vote, they're going to find their percentage of supporting winning candidates dropping like a rock over the next few years.
Comment Posted By John On 23.05.2006 @ 12:07
Defense Geek observations on the "admiral"-- technically I think this op would be run from NORAD, and as a joint command there are admirals on that staff, in fact the current commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command is Admiral Keating (4 Star). So… the question I have is why the President isn’t talking directly with that commander, not a measly two star (Remember “WarGamesâ€, back in 1983 the President got to talk with a full general)? In view of the events of the day it is most likely that himself would be at Cheyenne Mountain, even at 4AM (mountain time). As far as using an F/A18 (typically a Navy or Marine Aircraft) NORAD would task the op to whichever “alert†base was in the best position to respond. It probably should have been an Air Force asset out Cannon AFB New Mexico or perhaps Nellis AFB Nevada. An F/A18 would likely have come from MCAS Miramar or if Navy, North Island San Diego. Since scrambling from these bases would have created a tail chase situation (when Jack was east bound), it is not likely this would have been NORAD’s first choice. On the other hand the F/A18 is shown on CTU’s radar repeater approaching from the East… so where did he come from? My guess is he was on a training flight out of MCAS Yuma AZ (Training site not usually tactical). But of course there is still the tail chase problem, now that Jack is West bound….
Comment Posted By John On 9.05.2006 @ 10:13
THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF THE OPEN BORDERS CROWD
''Thank God that our competitors – the Mexicans and muslims – are such poor strategists. Blowing up skyscrapers and subways and marching by the hundred thousands waving foreign flags is a terrible strategy when your only skill is reproducing with abandon. They should have stayed quiet and polite until their numbers in our countries were larger''
Yep Bin Laden is a lousy strategist. He pulled off a major attack on American soil and has cost the US economy hundreds of billions in security costs quite apart from provoking us into a war that has cost half a trillion so far and created millions of new terrorists and sympathizers. Yep, he's a lousy strategist and we're brilliant. What else is there to know!
Comment Posted By John On 3.05.2006 @ 20:18
