Flashback XXV
2005.03.15 0:28

#US at war
I think such issues as you mentioned are highly political. I think they(DOJ) are doing their best. In case of war tribunal usually applied laws are different from those of normal criminal procedures.
#Sarin Affair
See http://www.sma.org/smj/97june3.htm [sma.org] The title of this article is "Sarin Poisoning of Tokyo Subway". Hear is the summary- there were two incidents relating to sarin poisoning. In Tokyo subway incident, killing 11 people injured more than 5500, and in the other incident, killing 7 injured more than 200. I think your hypothesis is quite right. There is no chemical weaponry without antidote beside itself. And the name of antidote is usually atropine. Atropine is NOT a poison, which is used for other medical purposes such as enlargement of pupil in search for retina. I think sarin and other chemical weaponries are WMDs. These are called a nuclear weapon for those who can't make real nuclear weapons. See other source for sarin. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg166.html [cdc.gov] The title is " Medical Management Guidlines (MMMG) for Nerve Agents.
#Causes Belli
Many people including you believe that the existence of WMDs can be the reason America started the war. -How come? I want to ask in return. Is there any country that has already known its opponent country holds WMDs still willing to start the war? In my opinion, US didn't intend to start the war unless it knows its opponent is not capable of any WMDs. So only after thorough inspections UN made, US concluded this country is not capable of them, so US invaded this country. Existence of WMDs only increase the number of casualties and only discourage US invasion in Iraq. I think it never becomes an excuse and let alone causes belli for US to invade Iraq. So those stuffs were made in 20 years ago... Safe enough for US soldiers.
#I think now I understand more than before. The existence of WMDs itself is not very important, but who holds. I think you taught me clearly.
#Man of Conscience
Those seem sarins. Looks binary capsules which will be attached as warheads. Any country has weapons for its defence or suppressing purposes. In the Iraq's case, they have history of suppressing Kurds by using mustard gas, ...it's not worth wondering. In addition, these capsules seem already expired 10 years ago. Such clues US troops found cannot justify their cause of war. HOWEVER, if you kept on feeling particular about these photos and contents, you would loose sight of the essential sense of this war. In one sense or other, they (US troops and US government, US people at large) are fighting against further terrorist attack, defending US and other free world countries, I mean we can be safe because of US troops' activities. We deeply owe to them. There're forces. One is justifiable and the others not. As a citizen of a free world country, I would like to support US government and their constant effort toward peace. Sounds like strange? If we just oppose the war, that sounds like we're receiving security from their (US troop's) effort and accusing them of their activities-that is inconsistent. Of course anybody doesn't like to see the ordinary people's atrocities there. We hope war soon be ended, and peace arrive. I understand well you're a man of conscience. I am a man of conscience too. Let's take sides with US troops with courages. That's what we need now.
#War Crime
Certainly, you are confused.
Once Clausewitz said that war is an extention of politics. That argument is applied to the same way in the notion of 'war criminal' as in war criminal is an extenion of judicial system to a war suspect.
So in war criminal court, only winners judge losers. Subsequently losers are war criminals. There's no vice versa.
There's no connection between war crime and WMD, still less whether the war was pre-emptive.
Crime against humanity is, on the other hand, different from war crime, sometimes related but not always, Milosevic case was related to war and Pinochet case not, that was related to his despotic regime.
Even in the case of crime against humanity, there's virtually none the winners of war are charged. But sometimes, some dictator after the downfall of his power are interrogated, that is Pinochet case.
When Britain arrested General Pinochet while his stay in the country, many might feel whether it's judiciary justifiable to charge crimes against his people at the time of his presidency by other country. In the end he's deported and faced charges in his land. This case ought to be accepted symbolic rather than judicial, though, it was significant as to let leaders of any despotic country know there's no immunity anywhere in the world from being subject to prosecution.
#Professional Duty
Anywhere in the world, journalists cannot reveal their source of information. They have to bring it to the graves. But because of that, sometimes their credibility of news goes to questions. I think to keep secret the source of news is an absolute rule for journalism.
#Most Effective Way
Most effective way to eliminate your enemy's just...dropping an atomic bomb. In your stated way, your regiment cost your soldiers half of the lives in order to eliminate all the enamies. So total loss of lives would be higher up to 3/4 among two regiments. Your way costs about 1/4 more than the least cost of lives. If you'd like a total elimination of all members of regiments both sides, this would be the most effective way possible.
# I can evaluate their attitude
I think the initial reaction Chinese government made was great. They knew how all of us need to help them much more and quicker than the rest of the world. The amount of fund Chinese government pledged for them clearly proved it. Prior to other nations, China showed savvy insight to the problems as well as Britain did.
#Sorry but
I cannot figure out how really imminent the threat is between two countries.
#Good Idea
Good idea, we can reflect our wills to the reality of politics anyway. But politicians would oppose to the idea, since they would lose how to spend the tax as they want, so all the more it's a good idea. Probably it's an idea that can be made it happen.
# Moral Responsibility Remains...
Selling weapons are lucrative act, almost all weapons are never used in real battle or used in exercise at best then abandoned sometime after the expiration comes. They ( Europeans ) don't want to sell weapons to neighbouring countries for fear it might be used against them or the interest of their allied countries, but they might feel free to sell weapons to distant countries, which might be placed in the Far East or somewhere, but they are not very particular about which 'side' they sell. There's no relationship between selling weapons and racism. Selling weapons itself has nothing to do with good or bad, as long as conventional weapons are used for defensive purposes, we have to admit sellers feel free to sell and buyers have right to purchase.
All concerning weapons depend on who use how for what, we cannot blame sellers for just selling weapons...yet their 'moral responsibility' remains.
Since Chinese authority passed 'the anti-seccesion law' or something which enables China to act in the wake of declaration of Taiwan. For centuries, Taiwan invasion has been thought to be unable because of its location, I still believe it is virtually impossible for China to invade Taiwan, though, advanced way of warfare based on hi-tech might allow them to find once unimaginable - now no less realistic strategy - landing operation, following only after the carpet bombing by scud-type missiles as US did in the last two wars in the Gulf. It was not until I figured out that the possibly danger of China's bold attempt when you started to point out the tension between China and Taiwan. We all have to be fully aware of the movement of this East Asia region.
The last paragraph doesn't make sense, I was in a hurry to work, I'm sorry. Should be read as ' It was not until you started to point out there's tension between China and Taiwan in your recent JEs that I figured out the possibly danger of China's bold attempt.
But if the Taiwanese were white, this would not be happening. -Stargoat
Yeah.. I think I get the point. In part this is true. Suppose Canada and USA are conflicting over sovereignty of North America, which to take a grip on it - just suppose - a third country ( non-white )is eager to sell arms to USA, of course if USian were other than white, this might not be happening. For them -senders it doesn't mean much which to take a grip on it, as long as they are both white countries, they don't care much.
Back in this situation, if they ( Europeans ) were told they don't care much about conflicts between countries other than white - in this case, people in Taiwan and China, same people, because this same/both people were not whites, nodody in Europe would not be able to say 'No, no it is not based on race, but is a pure commercial matter'.
All businesses has 'not nothing' to do with politics, general ambience - whether it is acceptable by European majority.
The closest thing I can think of is the long-running dispute between Russia and Japan over the Kuriles. -peacefinder
There used to be Southern Kuriles and Northern Kuriles. Southern Kuriles consist of four islands, and in the very first treaty Russia and Japan made(The Treaty of Shimoda-1855), these four islands were decided to belong to Japan, because at that time residents were only Japanese. Later in Kuriles-Sakhalin Exchange Treaty(The Treaty of St Petersberg-1875), All Kuriles were decided to be Japan's hand, while Sakhalin, which was mainly settled by Russian in north and Japanese in south, was decided to be Russian's. After the Russo-Japan War(1905), southern part of Sakhalin was conceded into Japan.
After the WWII, all Kuriles and Sakhalin were set apart from Japan rule, Japanese government admitted so in San Francisco Peace Treaty(1951).
Sometime after the war, Japan abruptly started insisting that the four islands were not the part of Kurile Islands but a nourthern territory, therefore four islands belongs to Japan. Then Japan referred to the very first treaty.
I guess this dispute was made up deliberately by Japan's conservative strata to exercerbate the relationship between two countries. As long as I can judge from the treaty(1951), there ought to be no territory issues left between two countries.
#Double Effect
Offshore Outsourcing itself is not a bad thing, which reduces the cost anyways. But if it were done by less trained people in that countries under a poor condition of equipment, it would cost double rather than half, which called 'double effect' of offshore outsourcing. So it might be a gamble sometimes
#You will be evaluated
Assuming from what you wrote, you must be very annoyed and frustrated by a newbee from India, but from a superviser's point of view, that's where your evaluation differs. So it's very important to teach them as kind as possible. Management always has to take into consideration on how to cut cost, to hire a human as cheapest wage. But the hired-to-be has to show a minimal workable ability to deal with the job, so if you help them to learn the job, your evaluation will be much higher in that you contribute to cutting unnecessary cost for hiring. Every job has its objective, if you showed sincerity to teach them as earnest as possible, you are sure to be hired as a full time employee soon. - Someone is watching you.
#War means hostility between leaders
We are now an occupying force. Granted, we are now fighting an insurgency. That often looks just the same as war. But, that is not the same. Exactly. War does not necessarily mean that the real fighing by weaponry is taking place. For example the war with Iraq started when US start speaking loud about the existence of WMDs in Iraq, then vurtually finished when former dictator was kicked out of power.
Other example. We are now at war with North Korea. Though real fight never took place, we started launching economic sanctions over North Korean ships harbouring into Japan's port.
The same apply to US-Japan War 60 years ago. When US along with other allied nations-Britain, China, Dutch so-called ABCD enclosure prevented exporting oils and steel's into Japan, the war was already started, only later led to a tradegy of Pearl Harbour in sequence.
#They Are No Competitors
You described India and China as competitors of America in outsoursable jobs, but I don't think they are mutured enough to compete American standard which is higher than that of any other country. because they find our work boring.
It's not true, I agree they both are making an every possible great effort to catch up with that of high American standard, but they are still in developping, developping stage indeed. You have to be proud of your country America more.