BEGIN Off Topic I submit that dismissing a law on the basis that it is systematically violated by hypocrits who pretend to uphold it is not logical;
It becomes more logical when you include the fact that all the hypocrites who violate it are the ones who created it and expect others to follow it when even they can't.
the issue are the hypocrits, not the law itself.
The issue is with both. The hypocracy of trying to enforce a set of rules they can't follow themselves... I mentioned Echelon, but Guantanimo and rendition blow the UDHR to small pieces, and a set of rules so called civilised countries can't follow that can be used for poor undeveloped savages... it is just a joke... and actually quite wrong at a very basic level.
]By your logic democracy is a joke because it is abused, manipulated and debased by the SOBs which claim not only to uphold it, but to actually promote and export it.
Democracy is a joke. Look at the US, there are the Democrats and the Republicans. Since when did democracy mean two choices where both choices are slightly right of centre? Democracy is supposed to be about serving the people and free choice, but once in power they can do pretty much as they like because you can't remove them unless they do something really stupid.
Some people say communism is Stalins communism. Others say true communism has never been tried. I say Democracy has never been tried either. If you examine American democracy carefully you will see it is actually a lot more complicated than it needs to be and most of the complication is to fix the results. It takes the US longer to have an election than India does and the US only has two parties!
That kind of logic give the power to the worst of humanity to discredit anything it does not wish to abide by.
Humanity was never asked about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A bunch of one eyed inbreds who call themselves the first world... as opposed to the commies in eastern europe who are the second world and anyone else that is not included in the largely white western world which is the third world, got together and made up some nice moral sounding rules... and broke them just as quickly.
It is not about the rules, it is about the real seperation between the first, second, and third world... the difference is wealth. Morally the difference is large on paper but tiny in practise and this shows it nicely.
Then what do you suggest you base international law on - that which thugs and imperialists really endorse and live by? Wink END Off Topic
First of all I think international law should be created by an international body like the UN, rather than the US and some rich country lackeys.
The morals might not be so high, but they will likely be more practical.
Actually, customary law would allow for the summary execution of pirates. Many countries did that in the past.
Yes... walking the plank, or being left on some deserted island, or the most common hanging them from a yard arm... or worst of all the Gibbet.
Back on topic, I do remember seeing a design of a trimaran with three hulls, like a boat with two outriggers and on the large flat area with the outriggers there was a large landing pad for a large helo and forward of that and rear of that were two more areas for helos that were smaller.
The triple hull should make it stable and fast and you could put a KAHTAN-M module at the nose and rear of the vessel, that would be 64 missiles in total that could be used against boats and 4 x 30mm 6 barrel gatling guns, which should be enough in addition to small arms and a few 50 or 57 calibre HMGs on pintle mounts and maybe a KORNET or ATAKA.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
I submit that dismissing a law on the basis that it is systematically violated by hypocrits who pretend to uphold it is not logical; the issue are the hypocrits, not the law itself. By your logic democracy is a joke because it is abused, manipulated and debased by the SOBs which claim not only to uphold it, but to actually promote and export it. That kind of logic give the power to the worst of humanity to discredit anything it does not wish to abide by. Then what do you suggest you base international law on - that which thugs and imperialists really endorse and live by? 
