twilight2000-digest Wednesday, March 8 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 126 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War Re: Laws of War Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 14:21:05 +1300 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan At 17:57 7/03/00 -0800, you wrote: > > >> Also, why would the US step in???? >> >> It is still technically a province of mainland China. The US would be >> stepping into a domestic problem. Would that not technically constitute >> an invasion of Chinese territory??. > >Actually, it is mostly just the Mainland Chinese that see Taiwan as a >province. If you ask the Taiwanese, they'd probably say that mainland China >is a province of Taiwan :-) This was seriously true, up to a few years ago. My fiancee is Taiwanese, and in school (during 80's) she got taught the Taiwan government was the rightful ruler of China. Having been there twice in the last four years (I was there in the leadup to the '96 election), I have seen some of the attitudes (although I don't speak the language) and they are now more into accepting the PRC as 'China' and themselves as 'Taiwan' and wanting to be more independent. Personnaly I think it is only a matter of time before they do declare some kind of true independence, unless China suddenly changes and Taiwan feels comfortable about recombining. As it stands, I don't think Taiwan would ever willingly put itself under the PRC's rule, similar to a 'Hong Kong' situation. Actually, it's a pity. If Taiwan's technology and PRC's population got together, they could really be an awesome combination...... Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:11:46 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > > That is untrue. The laws of war depend on International majority. Case > in > > point would be the IRA. The majority of the international community does > no > > see them as an army, or a nation, so the UK isn't bound by any other laws > > when dealing with the IRA other than what it (the UK) deems appropriate. > > The UK military is governed by it's rules of engagement. Those being very > similar > to the ones used here in Australia. They are also bound by the Geneva > Convention > among other things. All IRA members captured are treated as POW's by the > military. > The IRA are not treated as POWs. Besides instances of torture (which would be wrong whether they are POWs, or civil criminals) they have often be detained in civil institutions. The civil police have made numerous arrests of IRA members, and made raids against suspected IRA safehouses. My understanding is that in northern Ireland, the military is deployed in such a way that we in the US would deploy the National Guard during civil unrest (such as riots.) So they are acting more as a peacekeeping force, carrying out police actions. I've also heard that in northern Ireland, they end up dealing with the protestant groups (don't know if they have any names like the IRA,) as much as they do with the Catholic groups. Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:07:55 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > BTW, I'm not presenting the above as if I am any sort of historical expert > or anything. These represent nothing other than my own personal > poorly-educated opinions. Well put, I'd hate to see what opinions you could form if you were richly educated :) Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 03:14:28 +0100 From: "Carl Roger Nilsen" Subject: Re: Laws of War >From: "Corey Wells" >> >So, if the is no law written down, it only goes as far as a mutual >> >interpretation will allow it. And then, it can only be implemented if >there >> >is a force big enough to enforce it. Usually, it's only the losers that >get >> >into trouble. That's why the US doesn't want there to be an independent, >> >international court overseeing war crimes. We don't want our soldiers >being >> >held accountable to anyone but us. >> >> >> I'm sure Nazi Germany would have preferred nobody else to hold their war >criminals accountable either. In fact, it sounds like a natural preference >for just about everybody to shuffle their own muck without other countries' >noses poking in everywhere. >> > >The difference there is that when the trials came about, there was no longer >a Nazi Germany. My point in there was that it's usually the VANQUISHED that >get into trouble. The US has never been vanquished (even if considering >Viet Nam a loss, our country was still secure...) and probably won't be in >the foreseeable future. But if we give in to an independent world court, >then our soldiers will be liable to that court for actions during conflicts >where we do prevail. The US is afraid (and I think justly so) that the >losers of conflicts will trump up charges against our soldiers. Or just >anyone in an area where US troops are stationed and doesn't like it. >Granted, the incident (that I'm aware of) in Okinawa was bad, but such a >thing could easily be faked, and then our soldiers have to answer to a court >that isn't bound to the US. We want to keep them under our laws a judicial >prudence. I agree with that. > >If Nazi Germany had survived as an unoccupied nation, even if a badly beaten >and smaller one, I'm sure most of the War Crime trials would have no affect. >As it was, many accused have disappeared without facing punishment. One was >even living in Australia with the OZ not doing anything about it for awhile, >not even revoking his passports or keeping him under watch. When it was >finally decided to go get him, he'd disappeared out of the country. > >Just look at Bosnia, and how hard a time we've had at going after the >accused war criminals there. And I'd say that Saddham Hussein has committed >crimes against humanity, but nothing has every been brought about it. Just >some idle talk, by people on the sidelines like us. Now, if we had fully >invaded and occupied Bosnia, or Iraq, like we did Germany after WW2, a lot >more would have and could have been done. If he wasn't killed, I can assure >you that Saddham would be under arrest. > >It's funny, but I think some of the mid-East countries want the World Court >deal, and the US to bend to it. But I'd bet if it were one of their own, >they'd demand that we let them take care of the matter. Double Standard? >Think they might be hoping for the possibility of "getting at" the US in an >Internationally legal way? Bet you buckskins they do... One angle you have not covered is that US personell could get away with anything. I was not thinking "so those mid-Easterners could get at US" but the fact that any atrocities committed by US military could be hushed up by the domestic government, indirectly acknowledging further use of unnecessary violence. To use the Nazi Germany analogy again, if Nazi Germany were the undefeatable conquerors, they could perform their wicked war crimes relatively unharmed, and with noone to judge them, there would be an ever-diminishing limit to what actions were considered morally acceptable. Claiming independence from independent (Independent, not international. There's a big difference) war tribunals is proposing the old "You need us, but we don't need you" attitude. Arrogance can be a very unfortunate trait in the long run. What it boils down to, is that the likelyhood of war trial if a NATO (or US, wherever a difference seems to be important) blows up say; a bus full of refugees, a hospital, or even a Chinese embassy; is marginally smaller than repercussions towards the "bad guys" if they should commit incidents of the same magnitude. The "good guys" will be able to get away with more and more despicable acts, simply because they are not hindered. Now this will make the "small people" sympathize more and more with the "bad guys" (who suffer great injustice, coz they're not treated equally), and several extreme anti-"good guys" interest organizations will pop up. While Mr. Untouchable seems like a great idol, "equal before the law" is a popular modern mantra (see Women's Suffrage, Racial Equality, etc.), and when someone is not subject to this mantra, great cries of unfairness shall occur, yea, from the "little man" they shall come forth. I would summarize the essence of an independent court here, but by now that seems to have been made blatantly obvious from my latest remarks. On another topic on this list (on definition of war) the Norwegian forces (Air Force in particular) saw military action in Hugo the Slav for the first time since WWII (except some Gulf activity, minor). Politicians from all parties, including the most pacifistic ones, supported Norway's participation, but not _one_ politician would acknowledge that they had been in a war, they did not even claim the military operations to be such. Not "disawowing knowledge", but rather afraid to say the word "war". They were also afraid to use the term "bomb" or any other terms of military nature. A side-effect of this has been: While military personell from other participating countries received medals, not _one_ Norwegian pilot have yet been dealt a medal or badge for their effort. This is not because of low success rate, but because politicians are still touchy about these military action things, and would rather have the whole thing forgotten. So the pilots, having served effectively in the military operations, have still not received any compensation for their effort. :( Carl Roger Nilsen "Never overlook something that seems to be simple" Pungenday, day 67 of Chaos, YOLD: 3166 (lozenge) 228:01:01 (1) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:22:37 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Laws of War > > This actually annoys the crap out of me. The person you mention is an > alleged > Nazi war criminal. So far sufficient evidence has not been presented to any > country that the person has ever lived in for him to be tried. All any > country > ever does is deport him for being an alleged war criminal. Here in Australia > our laws actually state that you are not guilty of a crime until proven > otherwise. > Because of this they have the same rights as any other citizen. > > If he is a war criminal, cough up the evidence instead of just shunting them > around > and asking other countries why they aren't doing anything to put them up on > trial. > > Ballistix > Actually, hearing something like that bugs the crap out of me. Go ahead and hide behind your laws then. Sorry I can't remember the one blokes name, except that the stories I've read, there's been more evidence gathered against him than some others that have been tried and convicted! How much evidence does one need in Australia just to make an arrest? And how much evidence is needed to keep him under surveillance? To me, it looks like a matter of OZ not having the intestinal fortitude to do what was right. The crimes that the man were accused of were under international laws. Is Australia not part of the International community? It isn't the US's fault, or the war crimes commission's, that he keeps getting shunt from different countries. It is the fault of those countries for not detaining him, so he could be brought to court. And Australia was one of them. If OZ just simply kept him under surveillance, so they would know when he left, and where he headed to, we might have been able to get him. As it was, once his original destination was figured out, he was already gone from there. >From what I can tell by your response, enough evidence must be gathered on a person to convict, even before he's arrested. Why bother with court then? The purpose of arrest and court, is so that the accuser can present his evidence in a controlled forum, and the accused can present his defence. This can never be done if there's no arrest. Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:19:18 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) well stated walter __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:14:00 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan So what your saying is that the US doesn't really care for human rights or doing the right thing or being the so called policing force of the free world. It would only come to your aid if it has got something to gain. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:26:32 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > The IRA are not treated as POWs. Besides instances of torture (which would > be wrong whether they are POWs, or civil criminals) they have often be > detained in civil institutions. The civil police have made numerous arrests > of IRA members, and made raids against suspected IRA safehouses. When captured by the military they are. Although being a member of the military in Australia may not make me an expert. Having a platoon sergent from the British military on exchange here allows me some insight into the situation from his perspective. He has done three tours in Northern Ireland, had the majority of his platoon blown up by a car bomb and looks like a 45 year old when he is in his late twenties due to the stresses. > My understanding is that in northern Ireland, the military is deployed in > such a way that we in the US would deploy the National Guard during civil > unrest (such as riots.) So they are acting more as a peacekeeping force, > carrying out police actions. I've also heard that in northern Ireland, they > end up dealing with the protestant groups (don't know if they have any names > like the IRA,) as much as they do with the Catholic groups. Yes the protestant group is the Ulsters Union (spelling may be wrong). Both sides are fighting each other. The IRA sees the British army and the Ulsters as almost one and the same, ie that they fight both. Also I think you will find that the English also use their SAS on operations within Northern Ireland. You have to remember that when the military captures someone they are treated the exact same way as if they were captured during a war. They will still be questioned by the intelligence organisation for information etc. The only difference in this case being that instead of being held in a POW camp as such they are held in civilian jails and tried under civil law. POW camps are used during wars, simply because of the number of prisoners that you capture. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:34:16 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan > So what your saying is that the US doesn't really care for human rights > or doing the right thing or being the so called policing force of the free > world. It would only come to your aid if it has got something to gain. > > Ballistix > Yes, as is true with any nation. Don't try to tell me otherwise. The only real reason that the US makes a purely humanitarian aid effort, is when the populace sees images in media and urge the politicians to do something. Which is a nice thing about a democracy. As long as he can keep them in check, do you think a dictator cares what the people think? As it is, humanitarian aid can be a gain to the US. Much PR points there. And as far as being the so called policing force of the free world, no one seems to want us to be that, unless their in trouble and want our help. That would be self interest of the other nations, neh? Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:41:21 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Re: Laws of War <> Actually Mate the US was one of the first countries to shunt Kalasich out because they didn't have enough evidence, then he went to Canada they did the same then the UK. We went through all the process's and there simply isn't enough evidence that it is him to convict him in a court of law. Our govt at least had the balls to say it and not let the press try him as happened around the rest of the world. In Australia you can't keep surveillance on him as he doesn't have a case to answer unless there is some new evidence that comes to hand. The vague bullshit that the media has been tossing about just isn't enough. Ad *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:49:53 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan In a message dated 03/07/2000 5:58:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, baiya@geocities.com writes: << Who will the Big Dragon gobble up next? Korea and Japan would be the next two choices, before china starts moving down the Indonesian peninsula... >> How about the PRC going after territory taken by Russia during the 1800's or after WWII? In 1968, both sides almost had a full blown war along the Amur River. I don't think we in the States heard much about it, being preoccupied with other things. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:50:08 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) In a message dated 03/07/2000 5:56:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, graebarde@yahoo.com writes: << Where was the westpac meu(soc)? >> If you're referring to where they were when the two(?) CVBGs were in the Taiwan Straits in 1996, I have no idea. Most likely with the CVBGs. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:50:30 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan In a message dated 03/07/2000 5:50:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, atiff@physics.otago.ac.nz writes: << I think the US has a greater vested interest in Taiwan, and that would cause it to step in. Timor and Cechenya are not important to any US interests; Taiwan's semiconductor/computer chip industry is, AFAIK. It's a bit like the Gulf and the oil. Not saying they -would- step in, the chances are just greater than in the other two you mentioned. > The computer chip industry, the world's largest shipping company and the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act which states in part " to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:51:22 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan In a message dated 03/07/2000 6:11:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, atiff@physics.otago.ac.nz writes: << This was seriously true, up to a few years ago. My fiancee is Taiwanese, and in school (during 80's) she got taught the Taiwan government was the rightful ruler of China. Having been there twice in the last four years (I was there in the leadup to the '96 election), I have seen some of the attitudes (although I don't speak the language) and they are now more into accepting the PRC as 'China' and themselves as 'Taiwan' and wanting to be more independent. Personnaly I think it is only a matter of time before they do declare some kind of true independence, unless China suddenly changes and Taiwan feels comfortable about recombining. As it stands, I don't think Taiwan would ever willingly put itself under the PRC's rule, similar to a 'Hong Kong' situation. >> For the longest time up until the mid or late '80's, the stated goal of the Nationalist government was a triumphant return to the mainland. They even instituted martial law until the 80's. Over time, the Nationalists have come to terms with losing the war and moved on. If you ask any Taiwanese in the States, they consider themselves Taiwanese and not Chinese. It's a very sensitive issue for both sides, even to the point of American born Taiwanese consider themselves "Taiwanese-American". I remember my family went on vacation going from the US to Hong Kong to China, then back to Hong Kong and on to Taiwan. When we passed through Taiwanese customs we were told we had to destroy everything that said "Made in China" or "People's Republic of China." To a 10 year old kid it's nothing, but now I see it as a matter of pride, on both sides. by the way, did you get a chance to check out Snake Road? =) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:06:05 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) Scott: the ref to westpac meu(soc) was a question within Ballistix remarks about US not having combat forces to commit to Temor[sp] last fall? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:08:00 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan Sorry, it wasn't scott, but orrin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:33:03 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan In a message dated 03/07/2000 8:11:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, graebarde@yahoo.com writes: << Sorry, it wasn't scott, but orrin >> Hey man its cool. As for where the MEU was and why it wasn't committed, I think the national command authorities wanted someone else to have all the fun this time, and since the Aussies volunteered...=) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 22:44:16 -0600 From: Steve Subject: Re: Laws of War Adam Betteridge wrote: > > Actually Mate the US was one of the first countries to shunt Kalasich out > because they didn't have enough evidence, then he went to Canada they did the > same then the UK. We went through all the process's and there simply isn't > enough evidence that it is him to convict him in a court of law. Our govt at > least had the balls to say it and not let the press try him as happened around > the rest of the world. > Very true, just one note; the time to convict these people was in the 50's and 60's not the 90's, these criminals have lived there lives to the full, and trying to make a case (now) is nearly mote at this point. Steve *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:42:51 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan ROGER AUSSIE VOLS EXPECT FLAMES FROM THE SOUTH:) EOM OUT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:47:16 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan The real reason NCA[read uncle willie] didn't commit troop to Timor? He didn't want the troops to enjoy a Christmas in the tropics. Ever look at deployments for the past several years: Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc...all just before Christmas.. or extending into Christmas.. this from a guy who was "too good" to be a soldier [actually I think he flunked out of ROTC]:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:04:18 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 05:09 PM 3/7/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: >> >> I've already said this once, but if the combantants wear uniforms, YES, >the >> laws of war apply EVEN IN A CIVIL WAR. It does NOT matter what the >> government calls it. Governments often try to argue that they don't have >> to follow the rules because it's an itnenral matter, or their just >> "terrorists", not soldiers, or what have you, but these sorts of argument >> have NO LEGAL SUPPORT. > >That is untrue. No, it's not. >The laws of war depend on International majority. Case in >point would be the IRA. The majority of the international community does no >see them as an army, or a nation, so the UK isn't bound by any other laws >when dealing with the IRA other than what it (the UK) deems appropriate. The difference is that the IRA doesn't wear uniforms. They also do things (like plan car bombs) that soldiers aren't allowed to do. >> >Think about it a bit. By your definition of uniforms, and we can throw >in >> >something about there needing to be two nations involved, then the >Montana >> >Freemen were an opposing army, and the actions there were a war (okay, >only >> >when shots are fired...) I can get enough people together, put uniforms >on, >> >declare Sacramento an independant State. The government then must follow >> >the "rules" of war when dealing with me. >> >> Yes, exactly. I can't imagine why it would matter, though, since the >> U.S.'s laws for dealing with criminal suspects are in general more strict >> than the rules for dealing with POW's. > >Which is my point. I would be a POW, so must be dealt as a POW (assuming >I'm captured.) > It's better, in the U.S., to be dealt with as a common criminal suspect. >> >And what rules are out there? The only written ones I know about are the >> >GC. I'd be surprised if there isn't anything in them covering >declarations. >> You'd have to ask an expert on that branch of law. > >Which, with the force of conviction that you've put behind your statements >and answers, makes you appear to be. If you're not an expert, then don't >state your answers as fact, but as an opinion. So, in essence, you don't >really know how the laws of war are applied in an international sense, you >are just guessing like the rest of us. > The answers I gave are fact; I didn't answer the questions I didn't know the answers to. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:01:07 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan <> Well we only volunteered so that the UN would get one right for a change, they should put us in charge of all the UN military ops, seems we are the only ones who can do the job. (Tough firmly in cheek) Ad *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:21:39 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan At 02:01 PM 3/8/00 +1300, Andrew Tiffany wrote: >At 07:22 7/03/00 +0800, you wrote: >>Also, why would the US step in???? >> >>It is still technically a province of mainland China. The US would be >>stepping into a domestic problem. Would that not technically constitute >>an invasion of Chinese territory??. >> >>The other thing is...why did the US not stop Indonesia entering Timor 20 >>years ago...Why has it not stopped Russia blowing the kingdom come >>out of the rebels??...if it went into Taiwan, you may find it opens a large >>can of worms that would be very difficult to contain. > >I think the US has a greater vested interest in Taiwan, and that would >cause it to step in. Timor and Cechenya are not important to any US >interests; Taiwan's semiconductor/computer chip industry is, AFAIK. It's a >bit like the Gulf and the oil. >Not saying they -would- step in, the chances are just greater than in the >other two you mentioned. > I think the most important thing is that, whatever they say, people think of Taiwan as an independent country, and no one really believes it would be an "internal" matter for China. (Note that this would also be the case for the original Indonesian invasion of East Timor--and I'm not sure we'd be as passive today as we were 25 years ago.) Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:29:05 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan At 02:21 PM 3/8/00 +1300, Andrew Tiffany wrote: > >Actually, it's a pity. If Taiwan's technology and PRC's population got >together, they could really be an awesome combination...... > I really doubt that--the fact that Taiwan is a democracy (and before it was, the fact that it was a fairly open society) has a lot to do with that technology--I don't think a Taiwan ruled by an authoritarian govenrmetn would be nearly as formidable economically (we're seeing this played out right now in Hong Kong, where the rule of law is deteriorating). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:31:07 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 06:11 PM 3/7/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > > >> > That is untrue. The laws of war depend on International majority. Case >> in >> > point would be the IRA. The majority of the international community >does >> no >> > see them as an army, or a nation, so the UK isn't bound by any other >laws >> > when dealing with the IRA other than what it (the UK) deems appropriate. >> >> The UK military is governed by it's rules of engagement. Those being very >> similar >> to the ones used here in Australia. They are also bound by the Geneva >> Convention >> among other things. All IRA members captured are treated as POW's by the >> military. >> > >The IRA are not treated as POWs. Besides instances of torture (which would >be wrong whether they are POWs, or civil criminals) they have often be >detained in civil institutions. The civil police have made numerous arrests >of IRA members, and made raids against suspected IRA safehouses. > Even if they are treated as POW's, I don't think that excludes trying them in court--soldiers don't have immunity from prosecution just because they're POW's, AFAIK (but again, this is one area where I don't know all the ins and outs). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:39:39 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) At 08:06 PM 3/7/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: >Scott: the ref to westpac meu(soc) was a question within >Ballistix remarks about US not having combat forces to >commit to Temor[sp] last fall? Er...why's this addressed to me? :) I would imagine that they didn't want to deploy the MEU semi-permanently as a peacekeepers--they're supposed to be the first response to threats all over the region, after all. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 00:39:47 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Walter, I think you hit the nail on the head about "War Crimes" and international law. I do have some reservations about the idea because of that you said. I'm not saying war criminals should be left off but the best way is to have their nations deal with them as time goes on otherwise you start to get into national sovereignty issues. After that, even if they go free, they still have to face up according to their bad kharmas when they pass away and have to ante up to the deeds they've done in life. I'm a big believer in good and bad kharma. I'm starting to drift into the metaphysical aspect so I'll get back on frequency. B-) If we entertain the notions that if the Nazis won WWII and say they took England and European Russia, I'm sure Winston Churchill and Joe Stalin, if captured, would have been tried as war criminals by the Nazis. It wouldn't be pretty, I know that. So what it comes down to is that the winners take into account the deeds of the losers and go after who is guilty, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, and so on. The ball is in the court of the victor or at least those who have enough power to judge and enforce the rulings made by the "Powers That Be" (most often on the same side). I don't condone any of the shenangians that war criminals and others like them do but we must think about who does the judging, enforcing, and so on along with why and how. For example, we have the power to go after Serbia but we cannot go after Russia for their deeds in Chechnya. The main difference is that Russia has nukes, Serbia doesn't, again, we get to the "might makes right" issue. My aim is not to pick on anybody or anything, but sometimes we need a good dose of reality and reality often doesn't give us the picture we want to see. Chuck DE KA3WRW - --- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 8:50 PM Subject: RE: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > Remember you guys, that the only difference between a 'patiot' and a > 'traitor' is whether or not you win. Might makes right. Always has and > always will, despite what the enlightened philosophers of the world think. > > The IRA are criminals because they failed. > > The Montana Freemen are criminals because they failed. > > In Chechyna it is an internal police matter dealing with traitors until the > Chechens win, declare independence, and other nations recognize them. If > they win, it will have justified their actions. If they loose, they will be > criminals punished by the Russian criminal system. > > War crimes are something that a winner imposes upon a looser to further > exact revenge for the loosers actions. If the Nazi's had won, there would > have been no Nazi war criminals. Not because what the Nazi's did didn't > happen. Just because they won and the winner is right by the right of > force. How vigoriously are war crimes persued against members of the > winning side? Probably just enough to lend credibility to the process of > exacting revenge upon the loosers. > > The US founding fathers would have been nothing more than a little footnote > in history about some stupid right-wing (or left-wing or some stupid wing) > criminals that caused a brief ruckus if they had lost the war of > independence. In fact it was only a war because we won. Otherwise it would > have been a bunch of criminal hoodlum's running around the country side > until they got rightly put in their place by the glorious and brave (and > RIGHT) British Army. > > Might makes right. That's the way the monkeys do it when fighting over > territory, and that's the way people do it when fighting over all the stupid > crap we fight over. I'm not saying I like it or agree with it. It's just > the way I think the world is. > > BTW, I'm not presenting the above as if I am any sort of historical expert > or anything. These represent nothing other than my own personal > poorly-educated opinions. > > Walter > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #126 *************************************