Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is a difficult question to answer, and success in Iraq can only truly be measured in ten or twenty years time. “Victory” can be measured in stages; an end to major hostilities (laughed at now by the left), transfer of governing power to the Iraqis, transfer of total provincial police control to the Iraqis, general autonomous rule by the Iraqis, victory over the inevitable rise of insugencies in Iraq after the Coalition is gone, etc. If the Coalition pulls out but three years later the country falls to a bloody civil war, I think people will say there was no real victory. So this all must be gauged over the long term.
I did find this in the Hague Convention:
Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
As you see "provided they are not used at the time for military purposes" seems to relate to what you're looking for. I don't think I had read through the Hague Convention before so it was interesting to read it. It's rather short and to the point. I suggest other people read through it.
A new high of 49 users yesterday! Now if we can only get that many members on in a day.
Yes and most of them were spiders. 🙁 I happened to be on when they arrived....Yahoo had about 47 different spiders on at once. Unfortunately we can't train them to post but perhaps they can help index the forum a little bit better. 🙂
might??
I meant that calling the current conflict a "war" might make people associate it with something other than what it is. For example, calling the 1861 war the "Civil War" or the "War of Northern Aggression" can color one's view of the matter. Calling euthenasia "death with dignity" or "murder" can also frame the issue in different lights. Saying there's a "war" in Iraq might not be as loaded as some of these other things I mention, but it could - or "might" - have an unconscious effect on the masses.
Maybe it would be better to decribe it as a war for freedom – to free the Iraqi people.
Although the Iraqi people are already "free" in that they can come and go as they please and they live in a democratic system now. They are still threatened by terrorist activities, but this could be said for people in Northern Ireland as well, and we don't think of Northern Ireland as being in a "war". I guess my point doesn't matter all that much except that when people say "stop the war!" it sounds like it's a matter of aggression, when really it's a matter of security in preparation for a peaceful transition. And I don't think that it affects WWI or WWII vets much, but it might affect the public's perception of the current situation some.
Let me highlight the important point for clarification:
Whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power, by other ways than what the laws of the community have prescribed, hath no right to be obeyed, though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved; since he is not the person the laws have appointed, and consequently not the person the people have consented to.
Weren't the soldiers who abandoned James II, acting contrary to his word as law, violating what Locke is saying? And if so, shouldn't James II be the one who was the rightful monarch?
Why is it the commandant of andersonville was tried and executed for really less offensive deeds (for lack of a better phrase) then those who did much worse in the north? Wernt the goings on public knowledge?
If the South had won, do you think the actions would have been reversed and the commanders of Andersonville would have been given lighter sentences than those commanders of camps in the North?
I think that wars are more along the lines of military operations with relatively clear fronts and geographically-specified enemies. The Iraq “War” seems to be called a war in a similar way that the “War on Drugs” was a “war” during the mid-80s through the 90s, though with an enemy which is more directly hostile. The enemy's role is currently one which attempts to hinder the peaceful transfer of power through surprise tactics that perhaps have high psychological or political influence but little influence from a tactical standpoint. This seems to correspond more with “terrorist acts” than “acts of war”. The problem with calling it a "war" is that it conjured up images in far greater scope than what is actually the case. Then again, I haven't heard my point be brought up in the past, so perhaps I am the only one who things the current usage of the word is off.
Adding on to this thread, last night I saw a show on the Food Network which discussed “Soul Cakes” which were traditionally given out by homeowners from perhaps Medieval times through the 1600s. As explained by the show, people would go door to door and offer to pray for the homeowner or perhaps someone at the house (or maybe a deceased relative?) and the homeowner was supposed to offer a treat, such as a Soul Cake. When the homeowner wouldn't offer anything in return, the wanderers would do some sort of prank to the house (perhaps this meant throwing tomatoes at it!). At least this is what I recall from the brief overview they gave on the show. These Soul Cakes were similar to bread cookies - including a mixture of flour, butter, spices, and the yeast-containing foam that was produced in the process of making beer. The old recipe that was used on the show to bake a batch didn't come with specific measurements, so these had to be estimated. Perhaps I should bake a batch of Soul Cakes some day and relive the traditions of "Old Tyme Hallow'een".....
Rhode Island is a place I'd like to spend some time in because of its history. Seems to be the forgotten state but I imagine it has a pretty storied history. I'm sure you're able to see a lot of good sites there.
I have not read the book, but I was just thinking I should do so last night. I think a Gothic tale such as this would be good reading. It's a relatively short read, isn't it?
Looking back on my post, though, I see Donnie said “over a longer period of time”. So yes, economic competition does bring about more advances for the duration, but perhaps this is only because wars don't usually last for that long comparitively speaking. Advancements during times of strife are quick and significant, but economics drives steady advances plentifully in times of peace.
True….not that I'd be condoning that, but it was during a time of religious persecution in England. I think the celebration afterward had certain anti-denominational sentiments attatched to it during the years.
