QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I think Bush would find it easier to try Al Quaida members as war criminals and not unlawful combatants. This way the international community won't have anything to nag at the U.S about plus it increases legitamacy when you execute the S.O.Bs. Consider how much more difficult it would have been morally for other countries, if the *** were tried as unlawful combatants and not war criminals because lets face it; who really authorized World War 2 other than those who started it? How can you say that the *** asked legal killed civilians so techically you could have argued that the *** were unlawful combatants. Same thing, Al Quaida as far as I am concerned, was a partisan military group of the Taliban government therefore the U.S would have justification to label them as war criminals because their attack was a kind of Pearl Harbor. The fact that they attacked civilian targets (embassy, World Trade Center) doesn't mean they didn't start a war, it just means that it was a sneak attack and so the U.S responded by attacking Afghanistan. Like in Europe, the *** are still being hunted all over the world to be "brought to justice" same thing except the location orginates from the middle east and its name is Al Quaida. Just some friendly advise from an ally from the north. Al Queda is not a partisan group or any part of the Taliban. The Taliban was the ruling party of Afghaistan led at least publically by the Mullah Omar. They rose from the ashes and tribal infighting following the meltdown of the Soviet backed regime that occurred when the pulled out, feeding on an extreme brand of Islamic Fundamentalism, that included a Quaker/Amish style rejection of all things modern and western. Al Queda, with strong anti-western rhetoric found refuge there, because they were 1) running out of friends...friends don't like you blowing up stuff in their country, or US retalitory strikes, and 2) they had money and lots of it. They co-existed, and fed on each other but are two distinct groups, both of which have little purpose on earth, other than perhaps to feed the worms. So, technically speaking Al Queda are unlawful combatants, because they are stateless, like a mercenary, and very few actual Al Queda are Afghans. War Criminals implies that it was being done on behalf of a state. This was not the case, the fighting they have done together has been out of alliance against a common enemy.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I think Bush would find it easier to try Al Quaida members as war criminals and not unlawful combatants. This way the international community won't have anything to nag at the U.S about plus it increases legitamacy when you execute the S.O.Bs. Consider how much more difficult it would have been morally for other countries, if the *** were tried as unlawful combatants and not war criminals because lets face it; who really authorized World War 2 other than those who started it? How can you say that the *** asked legal killed civilians so techically you could have argued that the *** were unlawful combatants. Same thing, Al Quaida as far as I am concerned, was a partisan military group of the Taliban government therefore the U.S would have justification to label them as war criminals because their attack was a kind of Pearl Harbor. The fact that they attacked civilian targets (embassy, World Trade Center) doesn't mean they didn't start a war, it just means that it was a sneak attack and so the U.S responded by attacking Afghanistan. Like in Europe, the *** are still being hunted all over the world to be "brought to justice" same thing except the location orginates from the middle east and its name is Al Quaida. Just some friendly advise from an ally from the north.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Greyhounds Does that same arguement apply to gas taxes and the interstate highway system? Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Greyhounds Does that same arguement apply to gas taxes and the interstate highway system? Jay Well, I guess not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump. Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not.
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I still believe that National Defense is the best argument passenger rail supporters have. Suppose that in the event of some emergency, and it could happen, like the wrong people taking control in Saudi Arabia (pardon me, I gues I should say even worse people!) that North America had to rely entirely on North Amereican energy sources. This argument must be raised now, so USA interests need not be submerged in keeping a bunch of foreign despots happy. Canada is much better prepared than the USA, because it funds passenger trains better (and does some other things better as well). Too long, energy and transportation policy in the USA has been based on: What is good for Sauid Arabia is good for GM. It costs money to mothball a neede passenger train fleet. And then who would man them instantly when needed for mass movement of either civilians or troops? A good passenger rail system is a very vital part of National Defense and this is the argument that can win Bush and conservatives over. It is the same kind of thinking that good railroad management has when for example the UP keeps the Tennesse Pass line and won't sell it or rip it up. This prudence MUST be practiced on a national level or America may some day be blackmailed.
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds [ss not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump. Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals?
Have fun with your trains
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Exactly. The free market is a means to an end. It isn't the end.
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support. I would have an easier time agreeing with you if it was Osama in prison and not Saddam I deleted the rest of this message after writing a rather long reply for the sake of civiltity, save saying I notice an appalling lack of comprehension in this country for the ramifications of US actions. You say "Nothing gives terrorist the right...to kill innocent civilians"...Care to estimate how many innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed in Iraq? or have you even thought about it? and what that and images like Abu Grab have on the other half of the worlds population? What about those who are horrified seeing there tax dollars going down an endless hole in Iraq? Or a deficit that has the potential to hobble us into a third world economy? Too many people in this country think our concerns stop at the country's border... it doesnt
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. Maybe Amtrak and the NEC might broken up into Train operating companies ala the British Privatization scheme. The Bushies might tout the fact that UK railridership is up over 40% since privatization. to sell it the Frosk?Delay Congress.
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support. I would have an easier time agreeing with you if it was Osama in prison and not Saddam I deleted the rest of this message after writing a rather long reply for the sake of civiltity, save saying I notice an appalling lack of comprehension in this country for the ramifications of US actions. You say "Nothing gives terrorist the right...to kill innocent civilians"...Care to estimate how many innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed in Iraq? or have you even thought about it? and what that and images like Abu Grab have on the other half of the worlds population? What about those who are horrified seeing there tax dollars going down an endless hole in Iraq? Or a deficit that has the potential to hobble us into a third world economy? Too many people in this country think our concerns stop at the country's border... it doesnt I wish Osama were in prison too; I am hopeful he will be either in prison or dead soon. If I had to choose, and if both were equally easy to attain, I'd prefer it were Osama in prison. No, I don't know how many innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq. I'm sorry that even one has lost his/her life. However, our objective was to get rid of a bloodthirsty tyrant who gave aid and comfort to the terrorists AND who every intelligence service in the world thought had and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Our aim as I understand it is to leave some sort of democratic gov't in place when we exit (its exact form to be determined by the Iraqis themselves). Is it a tragedy that even one innocent Iraqi civilian was killed? Of course. Given our objectives for going into Iraq, was the death of some civilians an acceptable price to pay? I think so. Compare our aims to those of the terrorists; I know which ones I'd choose to get behind. As to Abu Ghraib, it's not a lot worse than some fraternity initiations. It's certainly one hell of a lot less than Saddam did to his own people. As far as I am aware, no Americans pitched people off second-story roofs onto concrete, applied cattle prods to sensitive parts of the detainees anatomy, or used chemical weapons on them, like Saddam did to his own people. Humiliation isn't fatal and doesn't leave permanent physical harm. People who didn't want their tax dollars going into a war in Iraq, and didn't want a large deficit created had their chance to change things on Nov. 2. Would you feel that way about large and useless social programs? I do.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The problem with passenger rail service is that many of the benefits accrue to others besides the operator and rider. For example, reduced air polution and noise pollution are societal benefits. Reduction in asthma attacks reduces heath care costs but none of that money saved winds up in the operator's pockets. Avoided capital expenditures for highway and airports reduces tax burden paying construction bonds and keeps private property on the tax rolls. Reduced highway patrols or avoidance of hiring and equipping more is another benefit that accrues elsewhere. Reduced oil consuption improves national security and the federal budget. Reduced carbon emissions may slow global warming. Reduced highway canage and property damage., etc, etc, Its never as simple as simple "free marketers" make it sound! Free markets are a great tool, not a "be all - end all", nor are they some sort of devine gift.
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I have to answer the question about the Saudis. Yes, there are some very fine Saudi people, a lot of them are doctors and engineers and scientists who have worked with Christian and Jewish colleagues (and possibly secular humanists and Budhists and Hindus and whatever) outside Saudi Arabia. But the country itself from all descriptions, and I think the February 2003 issue of National Review's article on Saudi domestic help (hope I got the date right) hit the nail on the head, is an example of exactly what Nazi Germany would have been with zero Jews, and Slavs and Galls used as slaves, and peace of course. In other words, only ONE ideology and ONE form of prayer is permitted and the ethos is that in the future that is the way the whole world should be. It is basically an extremist society. (it happened to be created by British Imperialism coupled with thirst for oil profits, but that is another story.) So even though the Royal Family and most of the Imams who are the educators tell people to keep it cool and not provoke foreign countries, the extremists become very extreme indeed. That is why some, most of the 11.09.01 terrorists, Saudis, became terrorists and that is why others fund them. But there is hope because some members of the Royal Family do understand that they do need to coexist in the modern world, that Israelis are not about to nuckle under terrorism and "go back to Europe" or Iraq or America, and possibly we will see a future where Saudi children are taken to a synagogue and Protestant and Catholic churches, possibly on a USA military base, a Post Chapel, to learn what other people are like. Then, there will be a hope for a future free of terrorism, eventually. Meanwhile, I think the USA should take all steps possible to insure that energy independence is a possibility, if only reserved for emergencies, and a strong passenger and freight rail system is essential for that kind of preparedness. Incidentally, all Vienese Children are taken on a tour of the city's major functioning synagogue at least once during their education. As you know, Hitler lived in Vienna and worked there as a house painter and started writing Mein Kampf there. Sure there is a "skinhead" Nazi group in Vienna, but the average Austrian is pretty free from that kind of prejudice today, and many different religious groups get along there. The city has a terrific streetcar system, by the way, one of the most interesting in the World and they run museum tramcars for tourists regularly. The ride up to Semering Pass isn't far and is spectacular, and there is the interurban line to Baden.
QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer Before you go bashing alleged Republican hatred of Amtrak, remember the infamous "Carter Cuts" of 1979. We lost the North Coast Hiawatha the second Seattle Chicago train,the Floridian,from Chicago to Florida,and the National Limited between St Louis and New York.We also lost the Inter American,sucessor to the Texas Chief.Under Clinton, we lost the Pioneer, the Desert Wind,and the Texas Eagle which was later restored.Both of these Presidents were Democrats[:(!].
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.