Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Card

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Trump's Card

    Trump's confused a few of his fans. Paul Nuttall "hoped for better".

    I know that's not the main issue.

    Comment


      Trump's Card

      There's probably a good debate there re: ethics. Is it ethically better to kill a tyrant or go through a ten-year circus of endless delays and appeals, subjecting his victims to reliving the horror every time it enters the news or he makes public statements. All for what? So we can lock him up and forget about him. Can you just imagine going through all that with Bin Laden? Good grief.

      Comment


        Trump's Card

        You're making gratuitous assumptions regarding time. The post WW2 International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg lasted eleven months. Just over a year elapsed between the beginning of Adolf Eichmann's trial and his execution. It's been done before, it can be done again. If we want it.

        Comment


          Trump's Card

          Gorsuch. Nominated January 31, appointed April 7. It took only two months and one week to appoint him.

          Garland was nominated March 16, 2016, a full 10 months before the end of the Obama presidency.

          It's just another nail in the coffin of American democracy.

          Could Obama have done this better? Nominate a very progressive judge first, and then come back a month later with Garland as a compromise?

          Comment


            Trump's Card

            Nope. The Republicans would have blocked any nominee, up to and including Gorsich. It is down to purely partisan politics now.

            Comment


              Trump's Card

              If Trump is motivated by emotional pangs also and not just naked cynicism that almost makes him more dangerous. If he really bombed for teh poor dead babbies, who knows what an appropriately outré atrocity might drive him to.

              Comment


                Trump's Card

                Amor de Cosmos wrote: You're making gratuitous assumptions regarding time. The post WW2 International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg lasted eleven months. Just over a year elapsed between the beginning of Adolf Eichmann's trial and his execution. It's been done before, it can be done again. If we want it.
                I'd be more interested in your plan to get him to trial in the first place. Ground invasion? Hundreds/thousands of lives lost on a goose chase of indeterminate length and outcome? Or Eichmann-style snatch and dash?

                Comment


                  Trump's Card

                  As I said we should be planning for tomorrow, not constantly looking in a rear-view mirror at so-called solutions from yesterday or the day before. If a fraction of the human and economic resources spent by the world's major powers on conventional weaponry were spent on finding alternative methods of capturing a single individual with minimal, or even no, loss of life then we might be getting somewhere. Even now it's relatively easy to find where someone is, securing them is more difficult but not impossible. Yes there'll be security, but why assume anyone needs to be killed? Why use bullets? We tranquilise animals, why not enemy soldiers? We're basically a smart species that acts stupidly. We're capable of better, much better. Why not try to be better before we blow ourselves to kingdom come.

                  Comment


                    Trump's Card

                    According to ABC news, Syria had advance notice of the targets, and so there was bugger all there.

                    Also, some "bullshit" elsewhere about there not being a single hole in the runway.

                    Comment


                      Trump's Card

                      But you're the one looking in the rearview mirror to Nuremberg and the Eichmann trial. What benefit did mankind see from those exercises? Did we learn to be better human beings? Did it end all similar atrocities? Did they, indeed, mainly end in the executions of those convicted anyway?

                      What would have been the point of trying Hitler or Mussolini or Gaddafi or any of those monsters from the former Yugoslavia?

                      Comment


                        Trump's Card

                        The runways are operational, as they were used for sorties today.

                        Some US sources claiming that they were never targeted, but it does seem increasingly clear that as many as half of the missles missed the base entirely.

                        Notifying the Russians obviously allowed them to warn the Syrians. Reports claim that senior officers fled without telling their soldiers.

                        Comment


                          Trump's Card

                          Assassination is not easy; look at how many times the US tried to kill Castro. Eichmann and Saddam were not heads of state when they were captured.

                          Trials are going to be called "victor's justice", as was Nuremberg, and their only purpose really is to humiliate the loser. There was some hope that trials might deter future dictators but that obviously never occurred.

                          Trump really is as thick as pig-shit but the Americans seem to like this fact, as their culture is anti-intellectual and pro-Action Man. It's like a Rambo presidency, until the shit hits the fan.

                          Comment


                            Trump's Card

                            WOM wrote: But you're the one looking in the rearview mirror to Nuremberg and the Eichmann trial. What benefit did mankind see from those exercises? Did we learn to be better human beings? Did it end all similar atrocities? Did they, indeed, mainly end in the executions of those convicted anyway?

                            What would have been the point of trying Hitler or Mussolini or Gaddafi or any of those monsters from the former Yugoslavia?
                            Examples from the future aren't available, so there isn't really an option.

                            It isn't flicking a switch. It's going to take more than a handful of examples to change the bloody habits of centuries. The most important point is trying to bring about justice without innocent bloodshed. The point is also, as Hannah Arendt said, to see and comprehend the banality of evil. Hitler, Stalin, and legions of others are mythologised, because we were never allowed to see their feet of clay. Even today they're considered monsters, not men. All of us — and especially their victims — need to see, and know, that isn't true. We also need to understand that, even though they're just like us, we're better than them because we don't do, nor countenance, the despicable things they've done.

                            Comment


                              Trump's Card

                              That Mark Corrigan style gamma minus newsman John Sopel has now filed a vile little piece on BBC news, normalising Trump and the Syria bombing like he's just doing what faggy Obama was too limp to face up to. No one will notice when they get privatised and Murdoched. They are now a full on partisan State broadcaster and no more pretending to be a Public Service broadcaster. And for the highbrow crumbs to the trustees, it's a dead heat between BBC4 and Sky Arts as to whose founding "mission statement" is now most debased.

                              Comment


                                Trump's Card

                                Marco Rubio saying that if Assad is willing to use sarin against his own people, then he is probably willing to use it against Americans.

                                Are they honestly trying this again?

                                Comment


                                  Trump's Card

                                  This is all very odd. There's somebody smarter than Steve Bannon behind it, whether you agree with it or not.

                                  Is it simply the plan that was there waiting for the next president?

                                  Comment


                                    Trump's Card

                                    I don't see a plan there; just Trump winging it.

                                    Comment


                                      Trump's Card

                                      Satchmo Distel wrote: I don't see a plan there; just Trump winging it.
                                      Isn't this true for almost everything?

                                      Comment


                                        Trump's Card

                                        He does but there are going to be brighter people than Bannon and Jeff Sessions at the top of the military. And maybe Trump is more deferential to soldiers than he is with other top brass.

                                        It doesn't wash that he and his team were upset by the news and came up with it.

                                        Comment


                                          Trump's Card

                                          Amor de Cosmos wrote: It isn't flicking a switch. It's going to take more than a handful of examples to change the bloody habits of centuries. The most important point is trying to bring about justice without innocent bloodshed. The point is also, as Hannah Arendt said, to see and comprehend the banality of evil. Hitler, Stalin, and legions of others are mythologised, because we were never allowed to see their feet of clay. Even today they're considered monsters, not men. All of us — and especially their victims — need to see, and know, that isn't true. We also need to understand that, even though they're just like us, we're better than them because we don't do, nor countenance, the despicable things they've done.
                                          But, with much respect, we know all these things already. Relearning them with each tyrant serves nobody but the tyrant. You're looking for a principled, ethical response to a question that doesn't deserve one.

                                          To frame that idea, let me state that I'm unequivocally anti death penalty. I fully support, for example, trying serial killers like Paul Bernardo, even when their conviction is certain and only prospect is lifelong incarceration, with likely no net benefit to anyone. This is, obviously, a very first world idea not embraced by all first world countries (or, indeed, people).

                                          And then there are tyrants. People with the uniquely rare power and malice to kill scores of people on a whim. We know their names. And no amount of principled 'learning from history' will ever change the way they approach their personal brand of tyranny. For these people, we (IMHO) do more harm than good when we let them mock the due process of law, continuing to propagate their lies as the surviving witnesses to the atrocities sit in the gallery. And then we kill them in the end, and have learned what?

                                          Comment


                                            Trump's Card

                                            You're looking for a principled, ethical response to a question that doesn't deserve one.

                                            Why not? Are there any questions that don't deserve such a response. When and where do we set ethics and morality aside?

                                            For these people, we (IMHO) do more harm than good when we let them mock the due process of law, continuing to propagate their lies as the surviving witnesses to the atrocities sit in the gallery. And then we kill them in the end, and have learned what?

                                            In what sense are they mocking the law? Quite the opposite. They don't have a gun at their side, or an army at their command to do that. It's just them. one ordinary flesh and blood human being, required to answer for his/her crimes against the rest of humanity.

                                            Trials are going to be called "victor's justice", as was Nuremberg, and their only purpose really is to humiliate the loser.

                                            Yes. That inevitably is going to happen. It's an evolutionary process, and will, rightly, change accordingly. The South African Truth and Reconciliation commission explicitly moved away from Nuremberg's retributive model to a "restorative" one for example. How much of that, if anything, is relevant in Syria's case is moot of course.

                                            Comment


                                              Trump's Card

                                              Amor de Cosmos wrote: Why not? Are there any questions that don't deserve such a response. When and where do we set ethics and morality aside?
                                              I framed that: when the situation is so extreme (as in murderous tyrants) that to 'bring them to justice' would do more emotional (or even physical) damage than to simply dispatch with them. And I'm not worried that this is going to be a slippery slope sort of thing. We're talking about one or two people in a generation.

                                              In what sense are they mocking the law? Quite the opposite. They don't have a gun at their side, or an army at their command to do that. It's just them. one ordinary flesh and blood human being, required to answer for his/her crimes against the rest of humanity.
                                              Not the opposite at all. They take the stand and either seek to explain it away (we were only following orders), deny it, or double down and give their heinous views one last airing. When are they ever actually required to answer for their crimes? When do they ever seek forgiveness or give their victims peace? It's a sham...it never happens. And then we kill them anyway.

                                              Comment


                                                Trump's Card

                                                ursus arctos wrote: The runways are operational, as they were used for sorties today.

                                                Some US sources claiming that they were never targeted, ...
                                                I'm inclined to think that the Tomahawk does not even carry a warhead that is effective against runways. The Russians won't be slow in getting their latest defensive hardware in place in Syria. If Trump's not careful he'll be giving them free testing of their capability against front line American weaponry while a third party is the target.

                                                EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I'm referring to their capability against cruise missiles, not anything that might risk American lives.

                                                Comment


                                                  Trump's Card

                                                  Hot Pepsi wrote: Why don't we ever try to blow-up the HQ of evil tyrants? Would it kill too many civilians or is it just regarded as unsporting?
                                                  I can't see what blowing up the White House would achieve.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Trump's Card

                                                    They take the stand and either seek to explain it away (we were only following orders), deny it, or double down and give their heinous views one last airing. When are they ever actually required to answer for their crimes? When do they ever seek forgiveness or give their victims peace? It's a sham...it never happens. And then we kill them anyway.

                                                    Well if you're convinced that it's beyond human capacity to move beyond Old Testament resolutions to violent conflict, then there can be no further discussion. As I said earlier, I'd hope we can do better than that. I do believe that, post-WW2 there have been positive moves in that direction, beginning with Nuremberg and moving through the, more than forty, truth and reconciliation commissions that have taken place in the last thirty years. None of these are perfect — any more than, in a different context, the EU or UN are perfect — but perfection is always the enemy of the good and, on the whole, the world is better off with them than without.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X