Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

French troops 'came close to shooting down Israeli jets'

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

  • Serb's wife
    In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

    Comment


    • I THOUGHT she sounded familiar. Is that really who she is or all Russians that wierd.
      I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
      For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

      Comment


      • It's a shame that you would only post questions for years yet still forget the question mark at the end.
        In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Oncle Boris
          It's a shame that you would only post questions for years yet still forget the question mark at the end.
          Yah, well my well armed panda is gonna get you.
          "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.†Martin Buber

          Comment


          • Well, the point is that if i have a choice which opinion is more important about if it's allowed to attack it according to international law, i'll believe an international organization that is defending human rights rather than some unknown forum lurker. So, your opinion is meaningless as long as you can't prove that they're wrong.

            I don't have to prove they're wrong at all.

            They're simply irrelevant. They have nill jurisdiction and no legal status at all - let alone a binding one.

            Q: Since when is amnesty international the enforcer, legislator or judge of international treaties and regulations?

            A: Since never.

            What they say is their own opinion and they are welcome to develop their own warfare doctrines and see how they work. They're also free to lobby their opinions in world courts, and before the UN, hoping to change current laws. Their opinion however still has absolutely no status.

            Nor does it have any balance. International warfare law was written with warfare in mind. It is usually well balanced between the needs of protection for citizens - and the requirements for actually waging a meaningful campaign.

            International organizations bent on human rights, have usually very little understanding of warfare, or sympathy for it (all war is bad etc.). Thus, they re-interpert international law and criticize many things they do not understand, which are perfectly legal and reasonable.

            Their opinion regarding enemy mass media and communications goes against modern warfare doctrine and practices. You're welcome to quote me wrong, if you're familiar with such cases.

            Nowhere in the quote you provided, is there a legal opinion. It is mere smoke puffing and groundless ethical masturbation.

            [q]Only if the television station were being used to transmit orders to Hizbullah fighters or for other clearly military purposes could it be considered to be making "an effective contribution to military action"/q]
            Who is to say what are military orders and what aren't?
            Is "keep your faith" a legit order?
            How about "never surrender"?

            What if the leader of Hezbullah merely appears and smiles? Does it not have an effect his minions?

            Anyways - who is to judge what is an effective contribution to military action? A bunch of lawyers? journalists? human rights activists? Moms against guns?

            Not to say Amnesty is not doing a great job documenting real human rights abuses in many places of the world. It however should stay clear of judging non-obvious measures of war. Because they lose their legitimacy.

            Also, you probably want to say, that we don't have a free Mass Media in Russia. Well, i know it as well. So what? I'm perfectly fine without it. As i already said, i don't watch official media anyway because they'll always be biased.

            Your supposedly free mass media is full of bull****, propaganda and double standarts, obvious even to a 5-year kids (i can read it as well thanks to internet), so i don't see any difference between western media and russian media.


            My original quote was there to show how your country employs dubious warfare tactics to silence opposing mass communications networks. I sincerely doubt BBC in Russia is used for any military purposes. Why will you not apply the same standards of conduct to your own government?


            As far as your claims regarding western media goes - media is not without bias or interest.

            However western media is free - it allows all points of view with all biases to show - and everyone can choose what view fits them. Your media is controlled by gazprom whose director also happens to be a vice president, if I recall correctly. You have only 1 type of opinion.

            Yes, i know, it's "free" and ours isn't "free". You may name it as you wish. It's like with your so called "democracy" thing.

            You have a true "democracy" and we have a wrong "democracy". Still, Putin has (and always had) 70%-80% support while Bush (for example) has about 30% or so (i'm not sure about recent values though). Here ends your rhetorics, our democracy is actually better no matter how you'll spin it



            Contrary to what you think - any country with a single leader gaining constant approval ratings above 70% is hardly democratic. It simply means that you have no real opposition and your country has under-developed political culture and thought.

            You claiming having a better democracy is a joke - since you fail to comprehend what democracy is. It is not high approval ratings.

            It is the ability to present different competing views, and change government policy, via public vote, or via legal actions.


            I'll just drop you a hint:
            in our country, the prime minister, cabinet and entire army comand are investigated by a specially set commission for supposed failed results of a recent war.
            The prime minister is also investigated by another branch of the government for ethical breaches and corruption.

            Is that at all possible that any branch of the russian government even for one second, try to question president putin?


            I could pull out a very very long article I read about Russia yesterday, but even I broke down and didn't finish it. Just in case you want it:
            Last edited by Sirotnikov; January 23, 2007, 18:45.

            Comment


            • Contrary to what you think - any country with a single leader gaining approval ratings above 70% is hardly democratic.




              ???
              12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
              Stadtluft Macht Frei
              Killing it is the new killing it
              Ultima Ratio Regum

              Comment


              • Thank you for the correction.
                I'm editing my post.

                Comment


                • Btw, what source is that?

                  I've never seen the approval ratings for bush being that high!

                  I was sure it was around 70-80% tops, and is now supposed to be around 30% as elle correctly stated.

                  Comment


                  • On the contrary, I think that the high approval ratings Bush enjoyed at certain points in his presidency were erosive of American democracy. If he had continued to hold 70 or 80% approval for 5 years I would have been extremely frightened of the possible consequences.
                    12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                    Stadtluft Macht Frei
                    Killing it is the new killing it
                    Ultima Ratio Regum

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sirotnikov
                      Btw, what source is that?

                      I've never seen the approval ratings for bush being that high!

                      I was sure it was around 70-80% tops, and is now supposed to be around 30% as elle correctly stated.
                      It spiked at over 90% in late Sept 2001.

                      The chart only goes to early 2005, which is why he's not shown plumbing the mid-30s as he does today.
                      12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                      Stadtluft Macht Frei
                      Killing it is the new killing it
                      Ultima Ratio Regum

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sirotnikov
                        I've never seen the approval ratings for bush being that high!
                        It's called the "Rally around the Flag" effect, IIRC. Never lasts too long but after the 9/11 attacks Bush pretty much walked on water as far as the public was concerned.
                        I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                        For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                        Comment


                        • It took a year to drop back down to a reasonable level. We can assume that most of the fall from Sept 2001 to Dec 2002 was simply people remembering that they didn't like Bush.

                          After that the movement is more closely correlated with his actual job performance (or at least the perception of his job performance)
                          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                          Stadtluft Macht Frei
                          Killing it is the new killing it
                          Ultima Ratio Regum

                          Comment


                          • I don't think even Ben Gurion or Sharon enjoyed over 80% approval.

                            Then again, there system here is different, and the press is much more biting.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by KrazyHorse
                              On the contrary, I think that the high approval ratings Bush enjoyed at certain points in his presidency were erosive of American democracy. If he had continued to hold 70 or 80% approval for 5 years I would have been extremely frightened of the possible consequences.
                              No you had a point.

                              I was missing the word 'constant' or 'continuous' support.

                              In cases of 'rally around the flag' as it was coined - very high approval is indeed real, and not necessarily undemocratic.

                              Comment


                              • I know your statement was overly general. But I wanted to point out to you that I believe you had an important point.

                                Even when a high approval rating is real, and comes from a well-informed public, it tends to lead toward dictatorship when it continues too long.
                                12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                                Stadtluft Macht Frei
                                Killing it is the new killing it
                                Ultima Ratio Regum

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X