Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Paper and pen is irrelevant. Only the the threat of the gun and a country's own internal morality means anything.

Gandhi freed India because he protested against the British. Had he been trying to free India from the imperial Japanese he would have ended up dead.

Frazzled wrote:Paper and pen is irrelevant. Only the the threat of the gun and a country's own internal morality means anything.

You do keep saying that. It's never been right, but you do keep saying it. The rule of law matters, and it matters more now than ever. With modern economies as mutually dependent as they, a nation simply cannot decide to ignore public sentiment and go it alone. The nations that have taken that course, such as North Korea, are the classic examples for failed nations.

Gandhi freed India because he protested against the British. Had he been trying to free India from the imperial Japanese he would have ended up dead.

Sbuh? Gandhi did it all by himself? No love for Nehra?

Meanwhile, Gandhi said the following about Jewish resistance to the Nazis "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. Collective suicide would have been heroism." Which is, ummm, a pretty out there concept from a really interesting character (seriously don't just watch the Attenborough film and assume Gandhi was genial if boring fellow, he was a lot more interesting than that).

And for what it's worth, the story of Gandhi as the liberator of India is one of those things that just isn't true. India's independence was inevitable long before Gandhi become involved, a shrinking world power can't maintain control over a country ten times its size for very long. Really, Gandhi's most impressive achievements were in achieving independence with relatively little bloodshed and in getting as close as he did to stopping partition into India and Pakistan.

Ghandi also admired Adolph for his stance and his vile deeds.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Paper and pen is irrelevant. Only the the threat of the gun and a country's own internal morality means anything.

You do keep saying that. It's never been right, but you do keep saying it. The rule of law matters, and it matters more now than ever. With modern economies as mutually dependent as they, a nation simply cannot decide to ignore public sentiment and go it alone. The nations that have taken that course, such as North Korea, are the classic examples for failed nations.

Try not to instantly go rabid there sebster. This is in discussion of a military context, not international business,w hich itself is just a
coalition of the willing.

A treaty did not keep us going to war with Russia. It did not keep Britain from going to war with Germany, or Germany with Russia.

Treaties are to be torn up at the worst of moments.

I like his (the reservist Major that this thread was originally about) attorney's name:

Orly Taitz

ORLY?

Now say that after each of her statements - it really sets the proper tone.

Frazzled wrote:Try not to instantly go rabid there sebster.

I'll try but I'm not promising anything.

sebster wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrookM wrote:Ghandi also admired Adolph for his stance and his vile deeds.

(Citation needed)

Damn right citation needed. It better be a good one to, Wikipedia doesn't count.

So I'm supposed to provide a scan from a Dutch book now?

Ghandi wrote:"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing, and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."

Orly Taitz, could be pronounced in an interesting fashion...

Oh wait what I just said could also be. I bet there are many ways Orly Taitz could be pronounced.

(Tee hee) sorry.

BrookM wrote:So I'm supposed to provide a scan from a Dutch book now?

Ghandi wrote:"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing, and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."

If it is necessary, yes. If it is a real quote, you'll find it elsewhere and in reliable sources. I'm calling on this. Having read a lot of his writing and speech's this doesn't sound a thing like him or something so far out of context that it doesn't make sense.

http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/edu_pro.htm

The reason why our soldiers take Talebans prisoner and their soldiers (I use the term loosely) don't take ours prisoner is because we have a better civilisation than theirs.

Part of the reason it's better is because we have things like the Geneva Convention by which we try to moderate what we recognise as the evils of war, even though being human and imperfect we don't always succeed.

If we abandon our legal structures for the supposed convenience of fighting a 'war on terror' we are doing the enemy's job for them and bringing ourselves down to their level.

BrookM wrote:So I'm supposed to provide a scan from a Dutch book now?

Ghandi wrote:"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing, and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."

Huh, interesting. I can find the quote repeated in a lot of places on the internet, but no source or any context for the quote. Given it's pretty different from Gandhi's other comments towards Hitler*, but that anti-war efforts are almost always contorted into sympathy for the enemy, I'd be very surprised if the quote was true.

Anyhow, I'd like to do some more reading on this, do you know who Gandhi said it to, or when?


*He said if any war could be justified, it would be this one stop the genocide of race, but that ultimately he believed no war could be justified.

I'm getting the feeling that it will be shot down regardless, so unless I can find the Necronomicon and rez that fether I'm shutting up.

BrookM wrote:I'm getting the feeling that it will be shot down regardless, so unless I can find the Necronomicon and rez that fether I'm shutting up.

Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression we were hounding you. It's just pretty out there, so I'd like to know a little more about it.

Kilkrazy wrote:The reason why our soldiers take Talebans prisoner and their soldiers (I use the term loosely) don't take ours prisoner is because we have a better civilisation than theirs.

Part of the reason it's better is because we have things like the Geneva Convention by which we try to moderate what we recognise as the evils of war, even though being human and imperfect we don't always succeed.

If we abandon our legal structures for the supposed convenience of fighting a 'war on terror' we are doing the enemy's job for them and bringing ourselves down to their level.

I'm still not certain what this has to do with a lawsuit alleging Obama's not legally qualified to be US President.

Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.


Link: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

The president is legal per USC. Nuff said.

And surely being ELECTED counts?

Shamfrit wrote:And surely being ELECTED counts?

Have you paid attention to US Presidential elections over the last 17 years?

Shamfrit wrote:And surely being ELECTED counts?

Not at all. The issue is whether he was qualified to stand to run for President in the first place. presidential candidates have to have certain minimal (and judgin by history very minimal ) qualifications. Minimum age, native born son, incredbile ability to kiss babies, are pretty much it.

Indeed. Seeing as he can string whole sentences together and read without moving his lips it would seem he's over qualified.

..... swap you for Brown ?

No way Jose. I may disagree with the Obama the Wonder Pres on many issues, but we finally have a President who could go toe toe on the eloquence front with Blair.

(translation I offered to swap Bush for Blair a while back,.Now we're both stuck). France still has us beat with Mrs. Sarkozy, and that short French guy who keeps hanging around her.
"Yes I am President of France. Have you met my wife? Yes She is Hawt, what do you expect, we are French."

reds8n wrote:Indeed. Seeing as he can string whole sentences together and read without moving his lips it would seem he's over qualified.

..... swap you for Brown ?

Only if you take Bush and Bill Clinton too!

Maybe I've missed it, because I didn't realize there a was controversy about Obama's citizenship until this week, but does the board of elections make sure someone has the qualifications to run? Or at least check afterwards? Has there been anything from the board of elections, Senate, whomever saying they reviewed his documents and Obama is a natural born citizen?

Who knows? As noted by others, if Obama goes then we're faced with Biden as President. Even AlQaeda would feel sorry for us.

If only Biden would nominate Cheney to be VP. I know it'll never happen, but talk about the ulitmate matchup of grumpy old men who may say anything at any moment.

Ohh.. go on.

See, we've had the woman, the nice but useless, the charmer and now the disabled one, but we haven't had an ethnic one yet-- if we complete the set we get...err.... some tumblers and some of those sea monkeys they used to sell in the comic books.

I wouldn't worry too much, Blair will be first President of Europe soon enough so you'll be seeing plenty of him.

I mean, he's working as a peace envoy in the middle east nowadays, so you can tell what an effective....errr..


.. how about we throw in a couple of minor royals ? You guys like Fergie yeah ? Andrew ? Princess Michael of Kent ?

Fergie, yeah, she's great in the Black Eyed Peas!

(looks over shoulder-nope SWMBO not around)
How about Elizabeth Hurley? I'll trade Obama for Elizabeth Hurley? Seriously.

Prince Will I Am ...?

Hmm.. actually you never see the Black Eyed Peas and the royal family together at the same time do you ? Eh ? eh ? Know what I mean ? Best place to hide is in plain sight and so on.

EDIT : Hurley really is an android, the beginning of Austin Powers 2 is in fact genuine.

It's the teeth, dead giveaway.