It also sounds that you may have also had RN or RAF possibly in your past as well. Either way, one has to know the ways of the "opposition" in order to defend or at least investigate.
God Bless.
KJV Matthew 5:16

---

[1] It also sounds that you may have also had RN or RAF possibly in your past as well.

[2] one has to know the ways of the "opposition" in order to defend or at least investigate.

ROFL

More truth there than you knew: [2] explains [1] ;-)

(hint).

I'm very happy to find I'm working together with military people on this project. It is good to find common ground where we can stand together. I hope forces personnel feel the same about my being here...

edit:

God Bless.
KJV Matthew 5:16

and you
John 1:5

[1] It also sounds that you may have also had RN or RAF possibly in your past as well.

[2] one has to know the ways of the "opposition" in order to defend or at least investigate.

ROFL

[2] explains [1] ;-)

(hint).

I'm very happy to find I'm working together with military people on this project. It is good to find common ground where we can stand together. I hope forces personnel feel the same about my being here...

There are enough tridents around in the "Ohio" class as it is. And there arw fewer patrols active for those as well. I do have a question, did they attempt to enter the base and damage the vessel or were they using legal action or public demonstration? If it's the latter, why in the world are they in court ?

---

... I do have a question, did they

look at the names of the defendants again

attempt to enter the base and damage the vessel or were they using legal action or public demonstration? If it's the latter, why in the world are they in court ?

we entered the dockyards where the boat had been built shortly before handover to the RN. We intended to make certain modifications to the boat (nothing involving the nukes) that would cause the RN to defer delivery. We had not reached the boat so no actual damage. Being on the way to damage something is not close enough in English law to count as an attempt: we'd have had to be actually at the boat for that charge to be made, so not even attempted damage. Hence conspiracy.

And a jury who accepted that we acted to delay a greater wrong, hence acquittal.

River~~

---

I think you might be surprised at the way many of the barbaric military people feel about the people that wage peace, as it were. The whole point of my service was to try to ensure that people would continue to have the right to do those things that are expressed in our constitutions. The only fault I suppose we see is that many in the peace movement (historically) blame the soldier for the policy of the government. Thankfully, the more modern movements have wised up.

All that said, the only problem with not being ready for war is that it increases the chances that someone will wage it on you. And, usually, the last people that want to go to war are those that are professional military.

---

... I do have a question, did they

look at the names of the defendants again

attempt to enter the base and damage the vessel or were they using legal action or public demonstration? If it's the latter, why in the world are they in court ?

we entered the dockyards where the boat had been built shortly before handover to the RN. We intended to make certain modifications to the boat (nothing involving the nukes) that would cause the RN to defer delivery. We had not reached the boat so no actual damage. Being on the way to damage something is not close enough in English law to count as an attempt: we'd have had to be actually at the boat for that charge to be made, so not even attempted damage. Hence conspiracy.

And a jury who accepted that we acted to delay a greater wrong, hence acquittal.

River~~

I would disagree about you assumtion of the jury, the reason for aquittal is proof of intent, if you did not have ordinance or anything that would have been interpreted as a weapon then intent is difficult to prove.

Engaging in voilence to deter violence is a bit backward, funding makes that boat float, just ask the Russian Navy about that.

---

I think you might be surprised at the way many of the barbaric military people feel about the people that wage peace, as it were. The whole point of my service was to try to ensure that people would continue to have the right to do those things that are expressed in our constitutions. The only fault I suppose we see is that many in the peace movement (historically) blame the soldier for the policy of the government. Thankfully, the more modern movements have wised up.

All that said, the only problem with not being ready for war is that it increases the chances that someone will wage it on you. And, usually, the last people that want to go to war are those that are professional military.

I believe the following applies : "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius - Epitoma Rei Militaris.

---

... Thankfully, the more modern movements have wised up.

Thank you. For noticing.

All that said, the only problem with not being ready for war is that it increases the chances that someone will wage it on you.

Ready for war yes, ready to go to war in response, no.

If you go to war you've got to try to win. The only problem with winning a war is that it makes people more likely to wage another one on you later, whether via military force or via terrorist force.

Peace activists argue that there are ways of being ready to cope with war other than by fighting. The benefit being longer term - that you decrease the chances of it happening again. And again.

If we, globally, spent as much on preparing non-violent responses to violent attack as we do on preparing violent responses to violent attack, then, in my opinion, we'd actually have the option of non-military responses that don't exist at present.

If you want to avoid war, get ready for peace.

And, usually, the last people that want to go to war are those that are professional military.

Absoutely so.

River~~

Peace activists argue that there are ways of being ready to cope with war other than by fighting. The benefit being longer term - that you decrease the chances of it happening again. And again.

I have no problem with this philosophy.

The problem is that your activity seems to be focused on inhibiting your countries ability to respond, rather than putting in place those other aspects you mention.

"Peace with honor" is empty if the other party is not interested in peace. Stepping on Hitler during the occupation of the Rhineland may have stopped him for the moment, though it is likely that the war that would have followed would have been only all the more terrible because he would have had more time to prepare, but giving in was not a path to success either.

In our current world situation, one side is only interested in you and I living according to the way they think life should be lived. And, if you resist, well, God is on their side ... and since you are against God, well, you are getting what you deserve ... and we should be in Cafe and not hijaaking the thread ...

---

... Thankfully, the more modern movements have wised up.

Thank you. For noticing.

All that said, the only problem with not being ready for war is that it increases the chances that someone will wage it on you.

Ready for war yes, ready to go to war in response, no.

If you go to war you've got to try to win. The only problem with winning a war is that it makes people more likely to wage another one on you later, whether via military force or via terrorist force.

Peace activists argue that there are ways of being ready to cope with war other than by fighting. The benefit being longer term - that you decrease the chances of it happening again. And again.

If we, globally, spent as much on preparing non-violent responses to violent attack as we do on preparing violent responses to violent attack, then, in my opinion, we'd actually have the option of non-military responses that don't exist at present.

If you want to avoid war, get ready for peace.

And, usually, the last people that want to go to war are those that are professional military.

Absoutely so.

River~~

I'm hurt, no commentary in reply. (giggle)
Had to say something about being missed.

And Paul is right, we should end using this thread for discussion off-topic.

---

I'm done, I believe the subject wrapped up by itself, we civilly decided to agree to disagree. Thanks for the opportunity.

I am happy to agree to disagree and to continue exploration of our differences over a coffee with those who have time; and equally happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that with any participants who don't wish to join us there.

KR Jones: Thank you too for the unexpected opportunity for dialogue

Bill: whatever messages you move over to the cafe it is fine by me. I'm curious now about what you were about to say...

Paul: whether now or later, I'm sure we'll return to this from time to time

River~~

Just a thread to throw stuff in from elsewhere, and to move any conversations on these topics.

---

Bill: whatever messages you move over to the cafe it is fine by me. I'm curious now about what you were about to say...

Well... politically, I'm a Libertarian. So on the topic of wars, I believe the U.S. should basically stay the heck OUT of any foreign entanglements unless obligated by treaty (and should be very careful in signing any treaties...) So I would have voted "no" on _most_ of the "little wars" we've been sticking our nose into for the past 50 years. Korea would be a "maybe"; Vietnam a definite "no"; Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Bosnia, Kuwait, etc., mostly "no" although in some cases (such as Grenada) a case could be made for going in. The U.S. should _not_ be the "world's policeman". My _biggest_ problem is with the U.N. and their heavy-handed bureaucracy - I'd like to see us just flat pull out of the U.N., and if they want to put in "peacekeepers" somewhere, let other countries volunteer for the duty.

The problem is that I would say a definite "yes" to Afghanistan after 9/11. And _probably_ a "yes" to Iraq as well. In this case _we_ were attacked, and a response _is_ justified. (And I know all the counter-arguments on Iraq, it was definitely only "maybe" as a response to attack, but I believe hitting Afghanistan "only" would not have done the job of preventing future attacks as well.) In general, I believe that _if_ it is justifiable to go in at all, then it is justifiable to go in "to win", and the hell with world opinion. Maybe if we weren't going in someplace new every two or three years, world opinion would be more in our favor when we did have to go in, and wouldn't complain about every extra bullet fired or building bombed.

So, I also believe that if the U.S. cuts back the military _too_ far, we can wind up under-prepared, as we were in the Clinton years. We don't need a Cold War sized buildup, we don't need to always be prepared for the _last_ war; we need more and better rapid response units, and fewer massive tank battalions. More cruise missles and fewer ICBMs. More aircraft carriers and fewer missle submarines.

On the _specific_ topic of someone breaking into a military base where nuclear materials are present (to include reactors, not just bombs)... I'm sorry, but I would have no problem with "shoot first ask questions later", and I believe that's exactly what _would_ have happened at a Navy base here. Peaceful protests, lawsuits, blocking the gates, etc. - go for it. But once you cross the line and become a potential risk factor for the lives of the military personnel on the base, or surrounding civilians, _some_ minimal attempt should be made to apprehend peacefully, but any resistance at all should not be tolerated. Some poor seaman with an M4 has no way of knowing if intruders are there to gain publicity - or to detonate explosives and spread radioactive material. When that split-second "shoot/don't shoot" decision comes up (and before anyone says I don't know what I'm talking about, well, I've been there...), the bottom line is that in the civilian/police world, it's slightly better to err on the side of caution; in the military world, it's _far_ better to err on the side of security.

---

And a jury who accepted that we acted to delay a greater wrong, hence acquittal.

I would disagree about you assumtion of the jury, the reason for aquittal is proof of intent, if you did not have ordinance or anything that would have been interpreted as a weapon then intent is difficult to prove.

Except that we made it impossible for the jury to acquit on intent by the cunning plan of us both admitting intent from the witness box. We admitted our plans, intentions, reasons, motives. The only way to a "not guilty" was for them to buy our argument.

Engaging in voilence to deter violence is a bit backward

;-)

River~~

The problem is that I would say a definite "yes" to Afghanistan after 9/11. And _probably_ a "yes" to Iraq as well. In this case _we_ were attacked, and a response _is_ justified.

My view is that the response your Government has chosen will increase terrorism against the continental US, not decrease it. You can't fight guerillas with a military machine as was discovered in VietNam, and guerillas are closer to being military units than the terrorist cells we are facing now. Victory by the US in Iraq will generate terrorism against the US at home.

Mr Blair knew there were no nukes in Iraq but he pretended otherwise. He told us he went to war to find the nukes, not to prevent terrorosm.

In a democracy if the leaders try to buy the public's support by lying then the actions they promote cannot be justified at all. It is not for me to say whether your own leaders were more truthful than mine at that time.

How can you fight to uphold democracy by subverting your own democratic process? I refer to Mr Blair, it is not for me to say if the same question hits home in the US.

Some response was clearly needed, just not a military one.

This war won't work in the long term and was already wrong even before the leadership discarded their own integrity to get it through Parliament.

On the _specific_ topic of someone breaking into a military base

This was not actually a military base; it was a civilian shipyard. The boat was not yet military property not having been handed over.

... I'm sorry, but I would have no problem with "shoot first ask questions later", and I believe that's exactly what _would_ have happened at a Navy base here.

In Britain you are more likely to be shot near a conventional ammo dump guarded by squaddies just off basic training than at a nuke base where the guards are well trained. My guess is it's the same for your bases. I know of many US peace activists, but not of any being shot.

_some_ minimal attempt should be made to apprehend peacefully, but any resistance at all should not be tolerated.

Absolutely so.

My policy is to make a clear and obvious surrender immediately on discovery, and I wouldn't work with someone who felt differently. Hands open away from sides drop any tools but drop them gently and slowly etc. Partly because we don't want anyone to think we are fighting violence with violence, but more because we don't want to get shot.

But I think the policy is that the attempt to apprehend peacefully is not minimal but is the greatest possible attempt consistent with safety. And I think that is exactly right.

River~~

Bill: whatever messages you move over to the cafe it is fine by me. I'm curious now about what you were about to say...

Well... politically, I'm a Libertarian. So on the topic of wars, I believe the U.S. should basically stay the heck OUT of any foreign entanglements unless obligated by treaty (and should be very careful in signing any treaties...) So I would have voted "no" on _most_ of the "little wars" we've been sticking our nose into for the past 50 years. Korea would be a "maybe"; Vietnam a definite "no"; Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Bosnia, Kuwait, etc., mostly "no" although in some cases (such as Grenada) a case could be made for going in. The U.S. should _not_ be the "world's policeman". My _biggest_ problem is with the U.N. and their heavy-handed bureaucracy - I'd like to see us just flat pull out of the U.N., and if they want to put in "peacekeepers" somewhere, let other countries volunteer for the duty.

The problem is that I would say a definite "yes" to Afghanistan after 9/11. And _probably_ a "yes" to Iraq as well. In this case _we_ were attacked, and a response _is_ justified. (And I know all the counter-arguments on Iraq, it was definitely only "maybe" as a response to attack, but I believe hitting Afghanistan "only" would not have done the job of preventing future attacks as well.) In general, I believe that _if_ it is justifiable to go in at all, then it is justifiable to go in "to win", and the hell with world opinion. Maybe if we weren't going in someplace new every two or three years, world opinion would be more in our favor when we did have to go in, and wouldn't complain about every extra bullet fired or building bombed.

So, I also believe that if the U.S. cuts back the military _too_ far, we can wind up under-prepared, as we were in the Clinton years. We don't need a Cold War sized buildup, we don't need to always be prepared for the _last_ war; we need more and better rapid response units, and fewer massive tank battalions. More cruise missles and fewer ICBMs. More aircraft carriers and fewer missle submarines.

On the _specific_ topic of someone breaking into a military base where nuclear materials are present (to include reactors, not just bombs)... I'm sorry, but I would have no problem with "shoot first ask questions later", and I believe that's exactly what _would_ have happened at a Navy base here. Peaceful protests, lawsuits, blocking the gates, etc. - go for it. But once you cross the line and become a potential risk factor for the lives of the military personnel on the base, or surrounding civilians, _some_ minimal attempt should be made to apprehend peacefully, but any resistance at all should not be tolerated. Some poor seaman with an M4 has no way of knowing if intruders are there to gain publicity - or to detonate explosives and spread radioactive material. When that split-second "shoot/don't shoot" decision comes up (and before anyone says I don't know what I'm talking about, well, I've been there...), the bottom line is that in the civilian/police world, it's slightly better to err on the side of caution; in the military world, it's _far_ better to err on the side of security.

I have a lot of different minds on this subject, and I wish I had the patience to type up an elagent argument.

That being said....

The USA is the policeman of the world, right or wrong.. i dont care, that is what the US is.

7 presidential terms ignored terrorists, the shit culminated and landed on Jrs. desk and on his watch. Hats off to him for having to deal with it. Yes he has made mistakes, but the biggest mistakes were the previous leaders ignoring the problem.

Terrorist and the middle east needed their asses kicked, it was over due.

And we have become too idependent on oil, yes this is true, but you liberal yeahyeahs are kidding yourselves.. If we were not dependent on oil we still would be kicking middle eastern ass right now.

Yes republican politicians line their pockets and their friends pockets, but you are truly an idiot if you think the democratic politicans do not, the break down is in our system, not with a party.

hmm what else can I say to piss ppl off? ok more will come later.. going to bed

---

Secret team meetings and the sharing of 3.2Terabytes of free software -->HERE!... Don't spy, we don't like spies!

7 presidential terms ignored terrorists, the shit culminated and landed on Jrs. desk and on his watch. Hats off to him for having to deal with it. Yes he has made mistakes, but the biggest mistakes were the previous leaders ignoring the problem.

In my view the error goes back to the aftermath of WW2.

Learning the lessons of 1918, the US put a lot of effort into making sure Germany (and Italy to a lesser extent) did not once again lapse into a war of revenge. The Marshall plan is one of the reasons that Europe was able to get united instead of squabbling amongst ourselves, and the EU owes the US bigtime for that.

Equally the US put huge effort into rebuilding Japan - their car industry for example exists because US car manufacturers shared technology with them in the 1950's.

Sadly, there was no Marshall plan for the mid-east. Arab countries that had had Axis and Allied tanks running back and forth as the war in the desert progressed, countries that were not even countries in the modern sense in 1939, were treated by the West -- my country and yours in particular -- as providers of resources not as areas needing input. France and UK were more overtly colonial about it than USA and USSR, but all four of the wartime allies basically treated the mid-east as a fre-for all over oil.

If we four, the original United Nations, had treated the Islamic nations fair in '45 then maybe they would not now be going for a replay on the crusades with us all as the home team this time around.

It follows that, in my analysis, Mr Bush snr upped the error at the time of his Iraq response, and Mr Bush jnr upped the error again -- both times with the support of my country's government

Which do you prefer -- the trade wars you now got with Japan and the EU, or the terrorist war you now got with the Moslems? It is your choice as a nation which legacy to leave your next generation.

River~~

I'm not so eloquent as you guys but I'll try. I would propose this observation:

I believe that U.S. Democrats (like my brother) and Republicans (like me) simply have a fundamentally different view of how the world works and therefore how to achieve an objective. My brother and I never have and never will meet in the middle and agree on any politic. I think the same is true between "peace activists" and so-called "hard liners". Each believes staunchly that their world view and approach is absolutely the right one. And each goes on trying to outwit the other to no avail. I can extend this idea to environmentalists vs capitalists, so-called "haves" vs "have nots", and on, and on...

So let me extrapolate my observation. Muslims (a significant portion) simply view the world order differently than the christian/jewish Western world. Each staunchly believes that its way-of-life is the right one. Despite what some people have implied in this thread, however, the U.S. does not make it a habit of flying planes into buildings of innocent people we don't like, or chopping off heads to make a point. Also, we accept into this country just about anyone (legal and non-legal) who thinks anything they want. We do not chop off their heads because of their beliefs or affiliations. Perhaps West will never meet Middle East anymore than Republicans (conservatives) and Democrats (liberals) will join hands and sing along in unison, but we don't murder in the name of Allah.

So, River, to use your line of thinking, you would posit that the Muslims hate Westerners because we meddle in their affairs or mis-treat them. Well these days I feel that the Muslims are meddling in my affairs. Should you not go to Osama and lecture him on how to treat me? And if I respond to my mistreatment by going into Afghanistan or elsewhere to root out the evil-doers, am I not as justified as any Muslim for what he's been doing lately?

I do not want or need a rebuttal. I just wanted to make an observation as food for thought.

7 presidential terms ignored terrorists, the shit culminated and landed on Jrs. desk and on his watch. Hats off to him for having to deal with it. Yes he has made mistakes, but the biggest mistakes were the previous leaders ignoring the problem.

Which do you prefer -- the trade wars you now got with Japan and the EU, or the terrorist war you now got with the Moslems? It is your choice as a nation which legacy to leave your next generation.

River~~

the trade wars are a result of your and my spending habits.
its pretty simple.. there is a line that any person or country cannot go over as far as what is sold to others compared to what we buy from others.

---

Secret team meetings and the sharing of 3.2Terabytes of free software -->HERE!... Don't spy, we don't like spies!

...My brother and I never have and never will meet in the middle and agree on any politic. I think the same is true between "peace activists" and so-called "hard liners". ... I can extend this idea to environmentalists vs capitalists, so-called "haves" vs "have nots", and on, and on...

Exchanges like this thread show that dialogue is always possible, and in my view if we end up understanding each other better then that is a benefit even if neither of us changes our position.

... however, the U.S. does not make it a habit of flying planes into buildings of innocent people we don't like,

That may seem different to the citizens of Basra who were bombed at least every fortnight between the wars of Bush snr and Bush jnr. Both the RAF and USAF took part in those air raids. From my side if the dove/hawk divide it looks like the only difference is that the air forces get to bring their people home after. The innocent civilians are just as dead either way. And the surviviors of the Basra raids are just as upset and just as angry as the survivors of 9/11.

And if I respond to my mistreatment by going into Afghanistan or elsewhere to root out the evil-doers, am I not as justified as any Muslim for what he's been doing lately?

.

Here I agree with you totally. We do have some common ground.

The justification has to be equal or you are claiming different rules for both sides.

My view is that there is absolutely no justification for terrorism -- I hope I made it clear. In case anyone hasn't heard me:

There was no justification for 9/11, there was no justification for the London tube bombings [subway bombings] that overlapped with the G8, there was no justification for any of the other terrorist actions. Whenever I meet people who promote violent change, whether it was the last century marxists or this century's moslems, I have always told them so.

Where we differ is just on one detail: I say equally justified yes, but *both* justifications equal to zero.

It follows that for me there is no justification for the violent response either.

... Should you not go to Osama and lecture him ...

If I come across as lecturing, I am sorry.

I did not come here to lecture - Ive been posting on BOINC boards now for 282 days and not raised the subject ever - didn't even raise it now till asked a direct question 2 days ago. This thread was moved from a number crunching thread where we'd drifted into this subject after postings about computer security.

I knew the guy asking the questions was Navy, he said so. Didn't stop me answering the technical points he raised. We are in this project together, even if he and I are not in agreement on other things. When we are here we are allies so I want to help him.

But when he asks me am I Navy, am I really supposed not to answer? Or not to answer the questions that I then get from him and from several other people? So I hope this is not a rebuttal, nor a lecture, but the next step in a debate, a meaningful dialogue.

---

And where I live its 7 hours to New Year - I'm off to other things. The astronomers are keeping us all waiting tonight 'cos they added an extra second 23:59:60 to come after 23:59:59 - but I don't mind we in UTC got an extra second to celebrate, you guys get it in the afternoon or early evening ;-)

Enjoy yourself tonight, however you greet the new year.

And remember, while we celebrate, we are also both working on a biochemistry project. We got at least that much in common.

River~~