Donald Trump ditches Obama-era restrictions on use of landmines, citing 'great power competition'

Poo,
Saddam didn't attack us, or the Brits or the US, yet we helped to invade and kill 1m people in Iraq.
Defending yes, but our own soil. The other stuff is often dirty business (especially the post WW2 period), and we still haven't learned from it.
Just saying....
Reg.

 

yeahyeahyeahyeahyeah......

 

What you mean when he/she praised Reagan in post 64? I never knew Reagan was a Democratic President. It is you who made it left wing/right wing nonsense.

 

So what happens when Japan hits Pearl Harbor? Some would say that's not really
America, it's Hawaii. Or, having struck Pearl the Japanese then went on to other
targets in SE Asia that have nothing to do with America.
Should we have fought Japan?
Should we have restricted Japanese oil because they were killing Chinese?

Just one small example.

 

Good...and that's what those 148 nations in the UN are saying, as well.

UN181 proposed joint administration of the site, which would have been a wonderful symbol for the reconciliation of "The Peoples of The Book".

Agreed ...and that's what the UN (in 181) proposed all those years ago. But since the SC cannot maintain security.....(I have covered that ground already....)

Yes, since In a sense, they were led by the nose to believe the UN could save them, because in fact the UN Charter (which has only existed since 1946, just one year before the Jews proclaimed their state of Israel) says: "The acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible".

That's been a constraint around Israel's neck too: Israel would have achieved in a decade what it has taken 70 years to achieve (with US help), ie the complete extinguishment of any realistic Palestinian state.

There you go again, taking a leaf out of Starjet's book and claiming the utterly irrational is the "completely rational".

Hence in your view the destruction of innocent life - children - is "rational".

BTW, when I visited the reconstructed Frauenkirche in Dresden recently , I was overwhelmed by a sense of loss of national (and world) heritage* ….you need to rethink your statement "the war was completely rational, by all sides".
*understand?

Addressed above.

 

Japan attacked Pearl Habor because of US sanctions on Japan. As an aside, what was odd is that oil was not included in the sanctions. Both sides had imperialistic ambitions in that region. The US did not attack Japan in order to defend the US mainland

 

When the Comanche drove out the Apache from land in Texas
that war was completely rational. The Comanche wanted the
land.
And when the Hispanics drove out the Indians it was completely
rational - they wanted the land.
And when the US drove out the Mexicans it was completely
rational - they wanted the land.

Do the you think those millions of Russians who mobilized to
fight Hitler's attempt to exterminate them was irrational?

War is usually rational. It's an unfashionable statement, but I am
sorry, I am unfashionable too.

Read up on that temple mount business again. You are partly
right. UNESCO acknowledges both sides, but it subtly calls
the mount by the Arab name - just as it tends to side with the
Palestinians in conflicts.

 

Exactly! There's not much else that you can say! I'll be STUNNED if I hear from you again!

 

It's very simple. @m2catter linked the pro-landmine policy exclusively to the right wing, when it's not actually an exclusively right wing policy.

 

So you completely change things with your last line. To you it is rational that if people want land which others are living on they take it. It would only be rational if they had the ability to defeat the other and take their land and if they had no moral system which stopped them from doing it.

The Russians you mention of course is not the same as all. They are people fighting in self defence.

To go and attack people because you want their land is not necessarily rational at all. As I said first it would only be rational if you could accomplish your desires without causeing much harm to yourself. Then it would only be if you had no moral compunctions to stop you doing it. Then you would need to be in some situation where there would be no come back.

A better world's post had shown you that the country you were speaking of did this action while knowing that as things stood there would be comeback and that that has delayed their end game by 70's years.

Was that rational? Possibly was given that was their desire. They may have thought, we will just hold onto it for as long as needed picking up more on the way and eventually we will be able to keep it.

Did it harm others? Very definitely Yes.

That is why the UN was set up after WW2. The world had shown it would kill millions of human beings going by what you call 'rationality' as shown through the rationality of 'might is right'. The UN created a different way of living where all the people of the world were to have rights not just the biggest Military. The US was the biggest player in creating this and this is what the US is currently trying to destroy.

As far as Rational. I was reading the other day that the possible reason why the West has been so vicious during its few hundred year reign and has now brought the planet to the brink of destruction was an over use of 'rational' and denial of heart. That is the inability to understand the power and strength and honesty of feeling. Due to that the West comes out with attacks on others claiming as you say that it is rational which would seem to lack unawareness that what in reality is most rational is to learn a way to live in peace with others which of course involves following laws like the ones which you are claiming to break is rational.

 

Your argument is that it is rational, and it follows reasonable, to go and murder someone because you want to steal their TV!

 

I don't believe reasonable comes into it for the poster.

 

There is nothing ration about the anti-vaccine mob.
If it’s 1776, and I live in Boston, I’m at Bunker Hill; if a German in Germany and its Kristallnacht, I’m in the underground blowing up railroads, helping Jews. Reasoning isn’t hard when it’s a way of life and practiced religiously, daily.

 

How can I explain colour to a blind person...

War, with its slaughter of children (aka "collateral damage" ....).resulting ultimately from competition for resources and the desire to preserve one's own culture.

The ultimate irrationality ...the species destroying its own children..

Being blind, you never admit that your own tribe is just as responsible for causing war as the other tribe. All the colonialist* nations in WW1 were responsible for that war (the result of European powers jockeying for their respective places on the world stage). WW2 was simply a continuation of WW1.

* colonialism itself was, or always turned into, an aggressive act of war on the part of the colonising power.

"Subtly calls....."; you calling political bias is like the pot calling the kettle black, I must say.

The mount has been in Muslim hands for the last 1400 years (except 1099 - 1187). Unesco is simply recognising that fact, and is also no doubt attempting to assuage Muslim sensibilities; since Israel had ceased to exist long before Islam ever appeared on the world stage.

It's a bit like the situation in Australia; with authorities now acknowledging the British 'possession' of the continent was in fact an invasion, from the aboriginal point of view.
Hence 'Ayers Rock' is now 'Uluru'....and the acknowledgement of prior land possession is read out in all formal public gatherings (..a bit tedious, I admit...; I would rather move on by guaranteeing every aboriginal person above poverty participation in the economy - no doubt a concept impossible for neoliberal economists (and their hangers-on) to construct.

 

In regards to historical disputes over land I always go back to an episode from the fourth season of the western "The High Chaparral".

In the series, The High Chaparral is the name of the ranch owned by John Cannon along the U.S./Mexican border in the late 1800s.

In the episode several U.S. Army officers are staying at the ranch.

One refers to the Cannon family as "thieves".

Buck Cannon (John's brother) indignantly replies

"My brother bought this ranch!"

Army officer

"Who did he buy it from?"

Buck Cannon

"The Spanish".

Army officer

"Did the Spanish buy it from the Apache"?

When he doesn't get an answer the officer directs the same question to Wind, the half Indian ranch hand of the Cannons.

Wind replies

"I never saw a bill of sale but then the Apache didn't buy it from the Navaho either."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0601115/?ref_=ttep_ep15

 

Dayton,
would you then tolerate the land/home grab by the Jews? I even don't want to give it a religious drift, but just the fact that someone stronger then you can come and possess your home. I think it is wrong!
It was also wrong that Russia took the Crim.
And the demand China's for Taiwan.
It is wrong !!!!
Reg.

 

Yeah, I'm fine with the Israelis taking whatever they want from the Palestinians and their neighbors.

 

Yeap,
that certainly means more right than left, I guess. Where is this dislike for Palestinians (Muslim?) coming from?
Reg.

 

Uluru has been in white man's possession now for about 150 years. The aborigine tribe
which lived there is long gone.
Agree with that? It's actually true. Some do-gooders found the next tribe, down the track,
and declared them the "original owners" But I digress - after 150 years this landmark
should be white man's territory. In the same way that Muslims occupied Jerusalem and
declared it Islamic.

As for "destroying your own children"
I wonder what the Russians would think of that in 1941 when the Germans spoke of
"living space" and the extermination of the Slavic tribes. To fight against an army of
3 or 4 million soldiers of the world's most advanced army might not seem rational but
it was a lot more rational than just being slaughtered - children and all.

 

I consider that a false analogy.
But if someone murders you for your TV then yes, they at least had a rational
(in their mind) reason - you have a TV, they don't. Your murder wasn't just a
random act.

 

Encountered a new word today, Oikophobia - "our western hatred."
https://quillette.com/2019/10/07/oikophobia-our-western-self-hatred/

I suggest this kicked in during the 1960's.
There's that old saying too "Bad times create good people. Good
people create good times. Good times create bad people. Bad
people create bad times."
We are at the "good times create bad people" stage - the standard
of living, health and security we enjoy today are unprecedented, but
it won't last. People claiming to be concerned for the underdog will
take us right back to the tribes, wars, famine and plagues of the
past. History backs that up. Are you an Oikophobe?

 

Maybe you are saying that Japan killing off all the Chinese was none
of our business, just as America thought the Nazis taking Britain was
none of our business.

 

Wow,
true blue spoken.
It (Uluru) is a holy place for all Aborigines, and regardless of our invasion of the Australian continent 230 years ago, it shouldn't take that much of respect to leave it to them. Long overdue.
I know I know, all the tourists cash dollars will be gone, but hey, most of the valuable land we took a long time ago anyway......
Reg.

 

And in the same vein the Jews should have Jerusalem back.
Meanwhile we will have to begin figuring out which tribes lived
in the Sydney area, and begin demolishing white people's
homes (not sure about other black people's homes though)
Just the same - the last white man to leave aboriginal Australia
cannot leave behind one item of white tech, not a match, axe
or can of beer.

 

Why so extreme, why so exaggerating?
Bet you are against a new Australia Date just to prove my point,
reg.