Blackwater CEO Implicated

Are these just accusations at this point? Implication usually means evidence of some sort, right?

 

I totally hope this guy gets indicted and hopefully it will rub off on the Administration that sanctioned the use of mercenaries.

 

I hope he gets indicted, and convicted, as well; assuming that he is guilty, of course.

 

Hmm... you're probably right. I was going off of:

"1. To involve or connect intimately or incriminatingly: evidence that implicates others in the plot." Source

The example given uses evidence, but the definition doesn't really require it.

 

There are plenty of problems to using mercenaries instead of a national military force for ongoing operations in a warzone. I think that is one of the big reasons that the United States is pushing to have an automated force to send into the field; machines don't make mistakes (though the people controlling them do), and you can't sue machines (yet, lol).

When allegations about Blackwater first came up, I was suspicious that they were not involved in more than just the firefight. I hope the courts can find the truth behind these new allegations, and bring justice to them.

I wonder if some sort of peace will ever exist between the world's major religions in our time. It's kind of ironic when you think about it: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all came from around the same region of the world. Yet even now there are still members (form all sides) that still hang on to centuries old hatred and rivalry. It sickens me.

 

There won't be peace for so long as military power is in the hands of those who practice any religion that regards other faiths/peoples as inferior. The religions will have to evolve and change, not just the people practicing them. I'd prefer that they (the religions) disappear altogether, but I don't think that's very likely, so I'll take what I can get.

 

? I'm confused. I made no implication that all religions are inclined to violence; I happily acknowledge that there are many that are not, though Buddhism cannot necessarily count itself amongst that number, historically speaking.

 

A valid point, in theory. I can't think of any examples of non-violent religions holding military power, though, simply because they are disinclined to do so. I suppose you're correct to say it's not impossible, though.

 

I think that anyone who uses a system (whether religion, race, 'authority' granted by soverign powers, etc.) to degrade, belittle, opress, or otherwise harm others should have any power. I don't think that it should be limited to any one group with a poor historical record (though we should not ignore the lessons that history has to offer us).

I think that it boils down to issues of use and misuse of power by those that have it.

Can there really be anyone though that does not have some sort of bias against another group of people (whether that bias is positive or negative)? The only thing that I could think of would be a group of machines executing military orders in the place of humans (or getting through situations using pure logic). Even then (as far as I am aware of) you would still have to probably have teams of programmers to make anything that complex. So I'm not even sure if a human element can be eliminated from that equation (unless computers can learn how to create programs on their own).

 

Agreed. The removal of violence inclined religion from consideration is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for peace.

Again, you're correct. I would propose that the best we can attempt to do is to minimize this bias to the point where it is not a major consideration. Zero bias is impossible for humans, but minimal bias is not.