At 06:33 PM 07/25/2003 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 16:33 2003-07-25 -0700, you wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 at 9:16, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder
> the legitimate leader of another sovereign nation and his
> entire family, an "artist's rendering" of Shrub reaping what
> he sows would surely be an excellent political statement.
You are a moron.
If today warfare means wiping out the family of the enemy ruler
man woman and child and showing their horribly mangled bodies
on TV, this is a big improvement on the old deal where the
rulers had a gentlemen's agreement that only the common folk
would get hurt, and the defeated ruler would get a luxurious
retirment on some faraway island.
Here, here!
Steve, did you mean "Hear, hear!"?
Or were you calling for it to happen "here"? :-)
Back when we had a First Amendment, that was probably legal,
but since Bush inherited the presidency, it might not be...
Perhaps we may even become as smart as some Pacific Islanders
whose wars were fought by surrogates, the logic being that the
death of one man can serve as well as the death of many in
determining the outcome of a disagreement between heads of tribes, states,
etc.
European feudalism did that also, though Europeans were
less likely to eat the bodies of the losers.
Trial by Combat was tossed out of British law in ~1850,
but hadn't been used for a long time before that,
though dueling was still around in the early 1800s.
