Jump to content

Stalins Organ

Members
  • Posts

    1,972
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stalins Organ

  1. A colleague who is a steam train enthusiast (loco driver & engineer for an org that runs a couple along the main trunk lines here) thinks they might be bearing boxes - ie they would have had white metal or bronze bearings that fitted in them, through which axles would run.

    If they weer found "in the middle of nowhere" then he thinks they might have come from a derailed wagon that had bits just left to sit where they lay.

    But it's only an edumacated guesstimate! :)

  2. People don't like Israel because it is acting like a twat. Post 1967 they had a heap of sympathy as the little guy that fought off the big bad Arab who vastly outnumbered it, theough sheer guts and competance.

    Now it's just a twat that sets its own rules and doesn't give a shirt what anyone else thinks.

    and because its relationship with the USA is now the tail wagging the dog - and all the downstream bull that has happened because of the way the relationship has at least clouded US foreign policy.

    I have no expectation that much will ever change - if the US & Israel ever do become "good international citizens" then some other country will take over their position as prime dorks.......the names and locations will hten change, but hte actions/effects wil lremain the same.

    but at the moment it's them & they're just digging the hole deeper every day.

    If it wasn't for the Palestiniaans & most of the Islamic countries being just as bad if not worse it'd be a slam dunk....but they're managing to win the PR war despite that handicap!

  3. Long term peace happened after 1945 - expecially in or at or to Vietnam, Panama, Haiti, Iraq (3 times), World Trade Centre, Oklahoma, Afghanistan (twice), Georgia, Chechenya, Iran, Jamu0-Kashmir, India (two or 3 times - I forget), Pakistan, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Angola, Rhodesia, Tibet, Nicaragua, Argentinia, Peru, Lebanon, Palestine, Anwar Sadat....and various others I don't recall.

    It's happening all the time - don't you read the papers??

  4. Yes I agree with all of that - mostly we do not want violence because of hte risks associated with it - an entirely sensible attitude!

    However where there is any conflict then we readily form into "them & us" & get swept along with "fervour", etc.

    and I agree about evolution - that was my initial point and my comment for the need for a few thousand generations - ie to breed it out of us....as long as the meek can do well.....:)

  5. Bred for conflict? Well I'm not and many people here are not too I think. Normal people dont want to go out and kill other human beings. They want peaceful and constructive lives. Its when people are mislead and brainwashed when wars began.

    We are still tribal creatures - the "them and us" instinct remains strong and that is what allows modern people to be "misled and brainwashed" - whether it is "patriotism", religous fervour, support of a soccer team, skin colour, language or whatever - as soon as we identify any "them" and an appropriate "us" we are wired for conflict to ensure "we" get our "fair share"...and "they" get whatever is left!

  6. Yeah well good luck with making any impact on that inside of a few thousand generations - we are bred for conflict through 4 billion years of evolution. It ain't going away soon.

    Edit - sorry - this is in response to Emrys's post at the end of the previous page. I more or less agree with Runyan - "World Government" woudl mean far fewer small ponds for people to be big fish in to ever get any "establishment" support ....except from the very biggest fish who would still be big fish in the bigger pond...... apart from that it's a great idea.

  7. Hardly hallal either!

    I don't think it is a policy of starvation. Gazan's are certainly not getting fat on what is allowed in, but I've never seen any accusations that anyone is starving to death there.

    It is certainly a policy of "pressure" - "you can get normal supplies if Hamas isn't trying to destroy us" sort of thing......but if Hamas says "see why you still need us" then Israel can point to the West Bank and say "or you could ditch Hamas and live like this" (which may still not be wonderful for those of us in nice rich liberal democracies of course...but would be better for the "average" Palestinian in a Gazan street!)

  8. Is the blockade legal?

    IMO the answer is a firm maybe :)

    No doubt many lawyers can make much dosh from arguing it, but blockades have been carried out against all sorts of entities - not just sovereign states, and not just in times of war.

    Certainly the Israelis declared it, and are obviously enforcing it.

    And the blockade runners did not follow the prescribed conventions for shipping humanitarian aid - one of which is specifically that it must be organised or shipped by an entity capable of complete impartiality - such as the Red Cross/Crescent - that ensures that it does contain only what it is supposed to .

  9. On the wiki page for the attack the Israeli's quote para 67 of hte "San Remo Memorandum", and if you follow that link you find a reference to the "San Remo Manual on International Law applicable to armed conflict at sea".

    And THEN....if you are so inclined you can check out their definition of a blockade (Part IV Methods and means of warfare at sea, Section II: Methods of warfare; Blockade)- and to my untrained eye it looks a lot like the same definition as the 1909 London version linked to above.

    I guess seaborne commerce hasn't changed so much in 100 years....and so neither has blockade!

  10. Blockade law dates back to the later half of the 19th centurey - lots of it comes from ofritish & US interactions during the American Civil War for example & the Treaty in Paris in 1856 in he wake of the Crimean War. WW1 saw lots of developments & breaches by all and sundry too - especially the British of course!

    The London Declaration of 1909 gives a flavour to what it meant way back then.

    Basically - a blockade had to be declared, and be enforced (note clauses 2 and 3). And as long as those conditions are met then yes it was perfectly acceptable to board any shipping at all on the high seas that you suspect might be running it.

    If a ship is found to be knowingly trying to breach a blockade it is then subject to seizure - "condemnation" - and all it's cargo can be forfeit.

    Of course not everyone ever signed up to this anyway.......and heaven alone knows what it means 100 years later......

×
×
  • Create New...