ibm9000 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:27 pm
I beg your pardon...
Missing the point...
I was arguing against his (erowind) point in your (you and him) conversation, that's why I used your name.
With all due respect, you missed my point. You attributed to me a position which I was not taking. Please be more careful, even if you are not criticizing my position.
is a condensed rehash...
That is an assumption, correct?
Russia could claim that the invasion is due to an unfair share of Soviet property... (another claim, why not).
It (the ACW) is still History, still war... still (not) learning from the past (or learning that it works).
I don't want to limit myself to 10' of History, it may provided not enough context to the seventh graders.
UK, National Security Bill. "Immunity if the actions of officials are deemed necessary for the proper exercise of the Intelligence or the Armed Forces"; like killing a journalist in Moscow.
Do you think this has anything to do with war, politics, History?, not to mention moral principles...
I do.
Russia could claim all sorts of outlandish things. That does not mean we should give them any credence.
I was not objecting to a reference being made to the Civil War, I just don't want to see this thread derailed into that topic. Why are you so resistant to taking these side issues to another thread?
Still, Erowind's initial reference was appropriate as he contrasted that event with the present situation. That does not mean that we should now spend pages and pages discussing the American Civil War. In any event, I was simply explaining my own lack of further discussion on that point.
I am not familiar with the clause in the UK National Security Bill that you cite, or the manner in which it is implemented. So, I have no opinion on that matter at the present time.
Don't mourn, organize.
-Joe Hill