1. War criminal? When did I say that?
2. He shouldn't need to enlist in the first place if other nations and politicians didnt decide to start another war every other decade.
Advertisement
by Blasveck » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:42 pm
by The Saint James Islands » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:42 pm
Classical republican, environmental student
Pro: Parliamentarism, civic virtue, positive liberty, soft Euroscepticism, the scientific method, facts
Anti: Presidentialism, authoritarianism, corruption, populism, hard Euroscepticism, misinformation
IC posts made by this nation are non-canonical.
This nation does not reflect my actual political views.
Do not use orally after using rectally.Guilherme Magalhães
Senator for Ilhas de Santiago Ocidentais
Staunchly independent
[23:53] <StJames> ^fake news^
The death of the West will not be a homicide, but a suicide.
by Tenebriso » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:43 pm
by Hathradic States » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:43 pm
by Blasveck » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:44 pm
Hathradic States wrote:Blasveck wrote:
I don't care if he was a simple soldier or a General.
War is wrong. War is hell. And nobody, NOBODY, should be able to send my son to one on a whim.
So? It doesn't automatically make all soldiers detestable human beings.
And, if your son enlists, he is volunteering for whatever war he is thrown into.
by Tenebriso » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:44 pm
by Agritum » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:45 pm
Tenebriso wrote:Agritum wrote:....shooting prisoners, regarding of their status, is a war crime, so moot point.
Even before the Geneva Conventions?
by Hathradic States » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:45 pm
Blasveck wrote:Hathradic States wrote:So? It doesn't automatically make all soldiers detestable human beings.
And, if your son enlists, he is volunteering for whatever war he is thrown into.
Did I ever say that soldiers were detestable beings? No.
I'm saying the system and the people who send my son to war are detestable.
by Tenebriso » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:46 pm
Agritum wrote:Tenebriso wrote:Even before the Geneva Conventions?
Read what you link. The Geneva Conventions are treaties. There was already a third one before WW2 started.
by Agritum » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:47 pm
by Blasveck » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:47 pm
Tenebriso wrote:Blasveck wrote:
1. War criminal? When did I say that?
2. He shouldn't need to enlist in the first place if other nations and politicians didnt decide to start another war every other decade.
1) Im just saying that if your son enlists then if the government initiates a war that causes war crime, yet he doesn't commit one, is he still complacent?
2) I agree
by Hathradic States » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:48 pm
Agritum wrote:Tenebriso wrote:I was legitimately asking a question, Im multitasking atm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
And it actually focuses on treatment of prisoners, too.
by Nationalist State of Knox » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:50 pm
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Tenebriso » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:50 pm
Blasveck wrote:Tenebriso wrote:1) Im just saying that if your son enlists then if the government initiates a war that causes war crime, yet he doesn't commit one, is he still complacent?
2) I agree
I said earlier that I respected the soldier, but not the system or the people.
Unless my son violates the Geneva Conventions, I would have to say no.
This is for you too Hath.
by Blasveck » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:52 pm
Tenebriso wrote:Blasveck wrote:
I said earlier that I respected the soldier, but not the system or the people.
Unless my son violates the Geneva Conventions, I would have to say no.
This is for you too Hath.
The bolded part may be what I am having trouble understanding. Do you mean the politicians? Or "The People" in the abstract sense?
by Nationalist State of Knox » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:53 pm
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Tenebriso » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:54 pm
Blasveck wrote:Tenebriso wrote:The bolded part may be what I am having trouble understanding. Do you mean the politicians? Or "The People" in the abstract sense?
I mean the politicians. I mean the old men (Generalization, I know) in Washington who have the life of my son in their hands over some arbitrary war.
by Hathradic States » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:54 pm
by Benuty » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:46 am
by Xsyne » Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:37 pm
Chernoslavia wrote:Free Soviets wrote:according to both the law library of congress and wikipedia, both automatics and semi-autos that can be easily converted are outright banned in norway.
Source?
by Regnum Dominae » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:11 pm
by Xsyne » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:28 pm
Chernoslavia wrote:Free Soviets wrote:according to both the law library of congress and wikipedia, both automatics and semi-autos that can be easily converted are outright banned in norway.
Source?
by Electroconvulsive Glee » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:59 pm
Hathradic States wrote:Sourceness Numbro Ein (The Daily Sheeple).
Source Numbar Dva (ACLU Website).
More Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-mill ... 38075.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/0 ... -seizures/
To sum it up, the Department of Homeland Security has the ability to search your electronic belongings for no reason, a clear violation of the US's 4th Amendment, within a hundred miles of the border. As you can see on the maps provided in the sources, this includes several entire states, such as Maine and Florida. At first, I was rather skeptical on this, given the original source, but the first article talked about the ACLU lawsuit over it, so I swallowed my conservative pride and checked there, where, indeed it does exist.
So, NSG, what are you thoughts on these actions? Is it reasonable, given the times we live in, or a gross breach of the US Constitution?
Myself, I find that, if the ACLU lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court, they will likely say that, indeed, the actions are unconstitutional. Hopefully, it will do away with the policy.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], The Archregimancy, Varsemia
Advertisement