Eyewitness to History

[Taem]

In the news this morning they were talking about a poll of what event people would want to witness if they could go back in time. Astonishingly enough almost 30% responded that they would like to see the last supper. This got me to thinking and I decided I would ask the question here:

If you could go back in time and witness a single historic event, what would it be?

For me it would be to witness the Constitution's victory over the Guerriere - the action that set the US on the path of being a world naval power.

:)

I'd love to see the battle of Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius) and his Egyptian lover, Cleopatra (the true power behind Egypt), against Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (Octavian) in the naval battle off the coast of Actium on September 2 of 31 BC. Well, I'd love to see this entire turn of events, including the death of Caesar and his murderers executions, up to Cleopatra's suicide.

After Caesar was murdered by the senate, Antony and Octavian ending up parting the empire between each other, Anthoy taking the East and Octavian the West. After many years, their ambitions made them clash and Antony was forced to engage Agrippa (whose skill was the greater), yet Antony's fleet was much the heavier. The battle hung in doubt, until Cleopatra with sixty ships broke away in full flight. Antony deserted the battle and followed his mistress. The rest of the fleet fought on desperately, until it was totally destroyed or captured. The deserted army naturally went over to Octavian. The battle of Actium was decisive for Romes leadership. Antony was beaten though not yet dead, however in July of 30 BC after hearing a false rumour that Cleopatra was dead, Antony committed suicide. Hearing of her lover's death and that Octavian intended to parade the defeated queen through the streets of Rome, she too killed herself.

[Occhidiangela]

Your citation of that article is a good use of an argument for use against laymen, and to be frank with you, holds some water. Yet that provision is easily unfulfilled at points "b" and "d" alone by someone reasonably well versed in working the Geneva Convention and its rules over, and leaves a big enough hole to work around . . . if there is a perceived need. If there were no perceived need, I doubt the whole Gitmo business would have been adopted, since it is so much extra work. Also, undeclared foreign combatants of extranational organizations, particularly without uniform and insignia, are easily classifiable as spies, saboteurs, and by default are not protected. It takes minor evidentiary fact to make those determinations.

As to "we are holding them for questioning" well, yeah, it's a war, sort of, and intelligence is critical to public security, war or no.

But the problem is not cut and dried, and you put your finger right on it: who is doing the interpretation? At the moment, posession is 9/10ths of the law, and the US interpretation holds. There will be an accountability, short or long term, (there is already carping) for the processes used. This is a special case because war, the and the political nature of war, has changed fundamentally since 1947.

Most rules of war are and were established by precedent, and often that precdent was custom before it was encodified. In the next 20 years, we may well see changes to The Code of International Conflict: none of that is written stone. In the meantime, the fellows in Gitmo, by all accounts, are allowed to pray to Mecca five times per day, well fed, and kept in good health. American prisoners in at least five cases that jump out in my mind, have been treated far more harshly. Extranational organs who hold prisoners do not offer them any Geneva protections, and occsionally assasinate or mutliate them to make a point.

Why should they get any better treatment as a class? From us, they do.

[kandrathe]

While watching the TV coverage on Sept.11/2001, I expected the President to head immediately back to Washington to present an image of courage and control to a shocked nation. Instead, he ran like a rabbit and hid in a hole until he figured it was safe. By comparison, the King almost immediately made a radio broadcast to reassure the nation, lending his courage to a nation under siege. I'm sure that his actions helped give the British people the resolve to carry on through the attacks that lay ahead, and to survive the years of war.

It's America's loss that they lack a leader who values the welfare of the nation less than his own butt.

I'm sorry, I think you may have been watching too many movies. We don't need a Rambo in the Whitehouse, we need a leader who is responsible and takes appropriate actions. When multiple planes start crashing into things, from New York, to Washington DC, to Pennsylvania -- the responsible thing to do is to stay safe and be ready to lead and do your job when the dust settles. You may respect the General who leads his men into battle, but that is just a stupid romantic notion (like firing a courtesy warning shot to alert your enemy before engaging and broadsiding him). How many planes did they have? It could have just was well been 25 or 50. The nation was stunned, but not in a panic, so having the President get on the airwaves to calm the populace was unneccesary and probably irresponsible. He knew as little as we did, so he wouldn't have informed us of anything other than how clueless they all were.

IIRC, he was in Florida speaking to some elementary school children. When the second tower fell, he was informed and immediately went back to AF1 (a mobile command HQ) and did his job. If history will judge GW Bush harshly it will be because he used 9/11 to further his agenda, rather than to rally the world, and our nation to the new cause of rooting out this evil, and preventing it from happening anywhere else. Immediatly after 9/11 the citizens of the world were prepared to respond, but that good will was squandered because this administration plodded on with their unilateralist Wolfowitz Plan.

[channel1]

RE: Convention Article 2.b, the Taliban / Taleban (whatever) typically wear black headgear to distinguish themselves.

The Convention doesn't really have much practical use, though. It pretty much serves as a tool to justify some actions to the public. One of the first violations in the invasion of Iraq was by the U.S., when they televised pictures of Iraqi prisoners in contravention of Article 13, "...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. ". That was not a harmless violation, either, as there were reports that the families of those who were identified as having surrendered were threatened, arrested or murdered. The declaration that this would be the case was made, and known in the U.S., before the invasion began, as a means to prevent Iraqi troops from surrendering.

Heh, your use of the term "Gitmo" threw me for a second, I assume you are referring to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay. :) I don't recall having seen it referred to that way.

Anyway, the treatment of prisoners by the U.S. administration probably just comes down to something that will be judged by those concerned with basic human rights and ethics. The U.S. administration has been inflexible in it's resolve to not permit members of it's military to be judged by the World Court for war crimes or human rights abuses. It has been established by the U.S. courts that Guantanamo Bay is outside their jurisdiction. The U.S. military is left to police itself. You may trust them to do the right thing. As for me, I'll reserve judgment.

Finally, to use unfair treatment of prisoners by others to justify one's own injustices isn't "right". It sounds more like blind revenge.

-rcv-

[Occhidiangela]

Where is the injustice?

And the black head gear issue is unfortunately not sufficient when pressed hard enough unless a clear association with that head gear, as opposed to all other black colored head gear in theatre is both declared and made. A black rag head is not sufficient protection from being assumed a spy or saboteur. The unit marking bit really is important.

For example, the Rangers used to be the only force in the US Army who wore a black beret, but it was more than a black hat: it had clearly identifying insignia on it.

As to the "public curiosity" in re Iraqi prisoners, I can only tell you to blame the media. In each case that I saw, but I probably did not see them all, the embedded media was taking initiative and, IMO, violating their RoE with the units on the ground. It stopped pretty quickly, and to claim that the long range shots of the PoW's in pens is "exposing the prisoners to public curiosity," is bizarre: You live in the 21st century, and the media the world over have about no ethics. How about you take a reality check?

Let's see, Al Jazera guys do live interviews on PoW's and film a few getting shot.

And the US showed captured folks, and then captured folks in pens from range, and you cry foul? Yeah, there is a really fair and balanced point of view, you ought to go work for Sean Hannady at Fox News, he'd love ya! :)

All that blather aside, the point you raise is not insignificant: what changes first, the rules, or the precedent that forces a rule change?

Me, I never for a moment thought there was any value added to showing Iraqi prisoners, but for the world to see a well constructed pen that is IAW Geneva rules, (both US and NATO doctrine are IAW with that.) It's wrong to show folks that you are abiding by the rules?

Humorous: that's what the information war is all about, and that piece has been in turbulence since about 1945 or so.

[channel1]

Occhidiangela: Uh, but since the treatment is humane and fair
Where is the injustice?

Well, okay then:

HEY, U.S. Army, or WHOEVER! Occhidiangela may know something about some terrorists!

Occhidiangela gets carted off, interned without charges, never permitted outside communication, with no prospect of release... but, his treatment is humane and fair

You may see that as just, but Mrs. Occhidiangela and all the little Occhidiangelettes may think differently. :)

-rcv-

[Vandiablo]

HEY, U.S. Army, or WHOEVER! Occhidiangela may know something about some terrorists!

Occhidiangela gets carted off,

Tsk. Occhi should never have worn that black hat.

[Griselda]

Tsk. Occhi should never have worn that black hat.

The lack of identifying insignia was a bit too obvious, you know? :ph34r:

-Griselda

edit- fixing bad paste

[whyBish]

Hang on Occhi, I'll save you... :D

[Occhidiangela]

You are a fool.

By all means, believe in fairy tales, don't let me dissuade you. Fantasy is an important part of one's life. Please don't insult my intelligence, or that of the folks who are on the pointy end of that with your "chicken little" bull**. Like in police work, you have to have probable cause.

But you don't give a f**k about that, of course, you have a cute little fantasy of tyrrany that it makes you feel better to hold.

If that is what America is, and was, Canada would not be a free and separate nation today: we'd have taken you over decades ago.

Chew on why we don't, and didn't, and why we won't. I am not talking about America, that quaint little collection of colonies experimenting in a new form of government who traded for most of a century under the protection of the Royal Navy's "freedom of the high seas" policies, I refer to Post T.R. America, a country who makes a difference on the world stage.

Chew on who built, and spent the critical formative years empowering, the U.N. Chew on who rendered it valid, in 1950, by our blood and force of arms, and those of a "coalition of the willing." (Yeah, one of the Big Five did not bother to show up then, no news anywhere, just history you don't know.) Chew on all of that while you whine in your weakness, your impotence, and your paralysis by analysis. Chew on why you put some people in jail pending trial. Chew on why you interrogate prisoners who have ties to the Mafia. Chew on why you have to do a lot of dirty damned things to take out crooks and murderers.

And while you are at it: what is your better idea that will work? The world is dying to know, as am I.

[ShadowHM]

Too much bile there for my taste.

As Bolty pointed out in his "Pot-Stirring" thread.......

If'n something is good, we all still want it to be better. And some of us bitch and whine about the shortcomings, even when we have no right to do it nor any influence on what actually gets done.

*hands Occhi some of her inferior but nonetheless effective Healing Potion of Crystal*

[channel1]

Who's living in a fantasy, if you really think that a scrap of paper with the American Constitution written on it is going to keep the people in power from doing what they darn well please. And people like you let them get away with it.

Clinton was almost impeached, over a fib about his sex life, while the current holder of that office goes about his way after deliberately lying in his address to the nation concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their acquisition of uranium from Africa.

As for America taking over Canada, they have learned enough over the years to know that a military takeover is not the best way, when an economic takeover has all of the benefits with none of the detriments. They HAVE been working toward that end for over 50 years. Consider the ongoing dispute over softwood lumber, and the US refusal to abide by the WTO rulings. Consider the ban of the import of Canadian beef, long after the evidence showed it was not necessary.

But, this is all pointless. You obviously have your mind made up, and solidly support whatever direction the US administration takes you in. You seem to be a living definition of jingoism.

-rcv-

[Occhidiangela]

"You seem to be a living definition of jingoism."

You don't read much, do you? Like the last year's worth of my posts on this topic. What are the two questions that I find unanswered, to this day?

As to Iraq: 1. Why now? Answer not yet good enough for me. 2. Can you implement democracy at the point of the gun? Not that I've seen

As to Terror: The war was already on long before 2001, I have been in it. You know less than crap, in comparison. And as to how you break up a terror network, you don't do it by hiding your head in the sand and hoping to hell it goes away. You do it the same way you break up an organized crime ring: with information. And you sure as hell do it by being a sonofabitch. Why do you think RFK was killed? Because he was so nice as Attorney General?

By the same token, you don't waste billions on an illusion of security while harassing the public. Why wast the time and effort?

You don't like Bush's style? You don't like the fact that there is risk? Fine, you aint alone. Now, like I asked, what is your better idea that will work? Gee, it really aint the critic who counts, is it? Carp away, but carping is about as useless as the fish tastes.

"Clinton was almost impeached, over a fib about his sex life."

And the point is, pinhead, that he was not removed from office. The system in our Constitution worked. Got it? What do you not understand about that? He was in fact impeached by the House, if you bother to check the record, (as was Andrew Johnson) but he did not get tossed on his arse because, (neither did Johnson,) funnily enough, plenty of Senators did not find a knobber or two in the Oval Office and lying about it to be a high crime or a misdemeanor worthy of dumping the President. Even funnier, justice was served, since the blowhard behind wasting all of our time on that, Newt Gingrich, was sent packing soon after. Thank goodness, but I guess you missed that bit. That's OK, what do I expect from a "short attention span theater" point of view?

"While the current holder of that office goes about his way after deliberately lying in his address to the nation concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their acquisition of uranium from Africa."

Check your facts on the speech transcript. You might be surprised, I was. I find your "perfect knowledge before making a decision" standard to be naive in the extreme, but at the same time I still ask: Why now? The only answer I come up with is internal politics and complete lack of confidence in any international body that suffers from paralysis by analaysis.

Now, was that the only reason the US went to war? No. Was the entire WMD issue a key reason that bought internal support? Yes, IMO, without it not enough emotion is harnessed, and without emotion, some political actions are not feasible. Is our Senate still looking into that? Did they let themselves get caught up in the emotion, on both sides of the aisle?

Yes.

Were the International appeasers like the Canadians, French, and Germans, guilty of enabling behaviour in Iraq? Sure. I do not find it simple, not in the least, this topic, and am appalled at those who do.
But guess what, like the system is supposed to, it is working. The case is still open, and we have not heard the last of it in the halls of Congress: just watch. He may yet be brought up short on that, or the voters may toss in his towel next year, or he may do as any politician does, like your own PM's, and sell his program successfully.

You think GW Bush is a problelm for world peace? Why, then, did he just a few months ago and get the sign off from Putin on the next enormous nuke drawdown with the Russians? Yeah, read the news, Chicken Little, yet another step down over time, arsenals going down to one third of current levels. Do you have any idea how many nukes are going away?

"As for America taking over Canada, they have learned enough over the years to know that a military takeover is not the best way, when an economic takeover has all of the benefits with none of the detriments. They HAVE been working toward that end for over 50 years. Consider the ongoing dispute over softwood lumber, and the US refusal to abide by the WTO rulings. Consider the ban of the import of Canadian beef, long after the evidence showed it was not necessary."

Yeah, the Japanese taught us pretty well. :) What, you think Canada should be immune to globalization and politically charged nonsense in trade? What makes you all so special, your good air? Join the effing club, brother, we are all in that one together: pick the topic, pick the commodity, pick the week, and ask who holds the bond on your government loans.

Now, ask yourself why you need to consider Yamamoto's words: "We have awakened a sleeping giant." Osama did the same thing. I am not referring to America, we've been a world power since Manilla Bay and Santiago Harbor. I refer to waking up the "silent majority" who would rather be left alone by them damned ferrinners. You wake them up at your peril, and as some find out, to everyone's peril. The urban elites, of which you appear to be a card carrying member, still do not GET who the hell provides the political muscle to send America go to war when they are aroused.

None of them live in Washington, D.C.

[Occhidiangela]

Bile not aimed at you, but if it splashed on you, sorry.

Yeah, good potion.

Note the "it could always be better" sentiment. No kidding. As in: I'd like more choices each two Novembers for starters. Why do they all seem the same? :(

[channel1]

I came here for a discussion, maybe an argument, but this seems to be turning into abuse. I guess my five minutes are up. :)

-rcv-

[pjnow]

Were the International appeasers like the Canadians, French, and Germans, guilty of enabling behaviour in Iraq? Sure. I do not find it simple, not in the least, this topic, and am appalled at those who do.

Please don't lump Canada in with the French and Germans on Iraq. While Canada would have preferred a UN supported action we did not actively ( or passively for that matter ) oppose the US/British action.

I personally would have been happier if we'd provided active support ( not that we could have provided much in the way of troops ) much in the same way we did ( and are )in Afghanistan but in all important respects Canada was much more onside than off side on Iraq. Unlike the French, Germans and Belgians we supported Turkey's request to invoke the common defense clause in NATO. Canadian ships were patrolling the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean ( might have the ponds wrong but in that vicinity ) in support of the war on terror and it would not suprise me at all if elements of JTF2 ( our SAS/Delta/SEAL guys ) participated in some way in Iraq ( would be unpublicized in Canada - our current Government doesn't like to admit that JTF2 exists, and really doesn't like the fact that the military occasionally has to kill people - as evidenced by their reluctance to allow the US to decorate a PPCLI sniper team in Afghanistan - they'd have to acknowledge that the snipers shot some bad guys ).

[Doc]

Are like walking into an adult sex toy shop. All there is to choose from is a bunch of dildos and pricks.

Edit. Oh yeah, forgot to mention. About the whole Clinton Trial. It was a great moment in history and it was funny as heck when he said "I DID NOT INHALE THAT WOMAN!!" He then corrected himself a moment later and said "I did not have sex with that woman." On live TV even. Seems he got his lies crossed for a moment there, was an absolute riot. Ah, sex, lies, and videotape. Clinton was a terrible president, an even worse liar, caused the economy to bubble and then pop, but, he sure was funny. I'll give him that. There is something about loveable baffoons...

[Leshy]

...might I suggest the explosion of Thera in 1628 BC?

The date of the eruption has been determined by taking ice soil samples all the way in Greenland, where ashes from Thera were found. As far as volcanic eruptions go, I think it's pretty safe to assume that Thera was a proverbial 'daddy' :)

-Leshy
"Reality? That's where I don't want Thera ashes on my Pizza!"

[Leshy]

I'm inclined to agree with Pete.

There's too many historical events that I'd like to bear eye-witness account to to even begin narrowing it down to a single one. The construction of many of antiquities' great buildings, such as the walls of Babylon, the Pyramids, the Parthenon, the Library of Alexandria, the Chinese Wall, Stonehenge, Macchu Picchu, Baalbek, are all things that would be amazing to see under construction, especially as it would finally show how some of those sites were constructed with the then 'current' technologies.

Other events such as the meeting in Yalta, the death of Caesar, the Mycenians arriving on Crete, the death of Marc Anthony and Cleopatra, the death of Hitler and Eva Braun, the assassination of Kennedy, the arrival of Hernan Cortéz in Latin America, Jesus' crucifixion, the Cathars surrendering to the French, the sacking of Rome by the Visigoths, Pericles delivering his speech to the Athenians, would all be equally interesting to personally view.

Maybe it's good that we are unable to view these things - the one thing they have in common is that shroud of mystery that surrounds them. Taking that away would boil history down to a relatively boring series of events. Not knowing all details of history is what keeps it alive :)

-Leshy
"Reality? That's where one should be able to witness the baking of the First Pizza!"

[Doc]

Seeing as how nobody mentioned this yet, I would like to see man making fire for the first time.

Grog the Sweaty and Gorg the Smelly setting around a pile of rocks, playing the now forgotten game of thumb chicken. You smash rocks together with your hands till somebody smashes their thumb and hollers in pain, resulting in loss. I could imagine Grog getting some flint or maybe some mica, or something like that, and a good striking rock out of luck. Mayhaps smashing his thumbs together right as the rocks sparked, mayhap setting his fuzzy furry tunic on fire, or mayhap his beard. Grog was renamed on the spot, now known as Grog the Burning, running around and setting everything ablaze, as stop drop and roll had not been invented yet. I also imagine it was around this time that humankind discovered profanity, obcene words spoken in the burning heat of anger, or mayhap crushing pain. With the profanity, the running, the gyrations and moving, and pyrotechnics, the birth of rock and roll also happened, as the two stones that smashed Grog the Burning's thumbs and ignited Grog's tunic rolled away as he flew into a panic. Women fainted at Grog's now Godlike status, and children squealed as their ears burned from the strange words. Surely there was no man who was manlier then Grog the Burning.

Also during this time, the Human Parasite was born, as Gorg became what would some day be called an agent. Five clam shells to see the burning man!