Gallup Poll
-
(Police != USA) The police do not write the law, they enforce it. The laws are decided upon (indirectly) by the people who must obey it. The law is very clear on the powers that the police may exercise in pursuit of enforcement. Then, punishment is decided by a different area of the system. In your example, the police themselves have decided what the appropriate response is to the given transgression(s) (i.e. regime change). In addition, if the police are deemed to have exercised undue force or unjust means in the pursuit of enforcement, then the police can be themselves punished - and nobody has the ability to do that to the US. So your analogy is flawed. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: So your analogy is flawed. Wrong! The UN decided on Iraqi sanctions not the US. His analogy stands. Eco Jones wrote: the police can be themselves punished - and nobody has the ability to do that to the US. They have the ability, it's the will and courage that's lacking. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Eco Jones wrote: So your analogy is flawed. Wrong! The UN decided on Iraqi sanctions not the US. His analogy stands. Eco Jones wrote: the police can be themselves punished - and nobody has the ability to do that to the US. They have the ability, it's the will and courage that's lacking. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: His analogy stands. Wrong! The USA decided to do a regime change, the action which was in question here. He was drawing an analogy using the USA as the police (which is false), not the UN (which would have been closer). But thanks for paying attention. Mike Mullikin wrote: They have the ability, it's the will and courage that's lacking. Yeah, sure. The US has already said it won't abide by the decisions of an international court. Eco
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: His analogy stands. Wrong! The USA decided to do a regime change, the action which was in question here. He was drawing an analogy using the USA as the police (which is false), not the UN (which would have been closer). But thanks for paying attention. Mike Mullikin wrote: They have the ability, it's the will and courage that's lacking. Yeah, sure. The US has already said it won't abide by the decisions of an international court. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: The USA decided to do a regime change, the action which was in question here. Ummmm.... no. Terry was responding in a thread based on Dave Huff's statement "And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions." But thanks for paying attention. Eco Jones wrote: The US has already said it won't abide by the decisions of an international court. That would be the lack of courage speaking. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Eco Jones wrote: The USA decided to do a regime change, the action which was in question here. Ummmm.... no. Terry was responding in a thread based on Dave Huff's statement "And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions." But thanks for paying attention. Eco Jones wrote: The US has already said it won't abide by the decisions of an international court. That would be the lack of courage speaking. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Ummmmm... no. Terry was drawing a specific analogy between 'the police should be blamed for the suffering of victims as a result of police action' and 'the USA should be blamed for the suffering of Iraqi victims'. Again, for the third time, this specific analogy is flawed because (Police != USA). Mike Mullikin wrote: That would be the lack of courage speaking. I agree - the lack of courage of the US to take responsibility for it's actions on a global scale. Eco
-
Ummmmm... no. Terry was drawing a specific analogy between 'the police should be blamed for the suffering of victims as a result of police action' and 'the USA should be blamed for the suffering of Iraqi victims'. Again, for the third time, this specific analogy is flawed because (Police != USA). Mike Mullikin wrote: That would be the lack of courage speaking. I agree - the lack of courage of the US to take responsibility for it's actions on a global scale. Eco
Apparently we're reading different threads, cuz' I know what I read and it ain't what you're saying it is! ;P Eco Jones wrote: the lack of courage of the US to take responsibility for it's actions on a global scale. From my POV it takes US courage to tell the world what we're gonna do and then go out and do it while it shows a decided lack of will/courage for the people whining about it to do nothing more than whine. You and your ilk are quick to point a finger and cry wolf but lack any tangible efforts of your own. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Apparently we're reading different threads, cuz' I know what I read and it ain't what you're saying it is! ;P Eco Jones wrote: the lack of courage of the US to take responsibility for it's actions on a global scale. From my POV it takes US courage to tell the world what we're gonna do and then go out and do it while it shows a decided lack of will/courage for the people whining about it to do nothing more than whine. You and your ilk are quick to point a finger and cry wolf but lack any tangible efforts of your own. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
This is the analogy I was commenting on, Mike: Specifically (Police != USA). Imagine the following situation: A low-level drug dealer makes $1,000 a week dealing crack. The cops bust him and sentence him to 5 years probation. He is forced to get a job as part of his probation terms. Instead of feeding his children with the $200 a week he makes slinging burgers he buys malt liquor and weed. His child is reported to social services by a teacher. If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. You would believe that the drug dealer was a victim of the police and the police should not have stopped his drug dealing because he made lots of money and out of that money he bought food for his kid. Mike Mullikin wrote: From my POV it takes US courage to tell the world what we're gonna do and then go out and do it while it shows a decided lack of will/courage for the people whining about it to do nothing more than whine. It's not courage when there's no real consequences to a decision. By your logic, the terrorists are courageous for fighting back against the US for the wrongs they believe were done to them, in the only way available to them. Shall we applaud the actions of the 9/11ers too, for their courage in standing up to the 'Great Satan?' Eco
-
This is the analogy I was commenting on, Mike: Specifically (Police != USA). Imagine the following situation: A low-level drug dealer makes $1,000 a week dealing crack. The cops bust him and sentence him to 5 years probation. He is forced to get a job as part of his probation terms. Instead of feeding his children with the $200 a week he makes slinging burgers he buys malt liquor and weed. His child is reported to social services by a teacher. If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. You would believe that the drug dealer was a victim of the police and the police should not have stopped his drug dealing because he made lots of money and out of that money he bought food for his kid. Mike Mullikin wrote: From my POV it takes US courage to tell the world what we're gonna do and then go out and do it while it shows a decided lack of will/courage for the people whining about it to do nothing more than whine. It's not courage when there's no real consequences to a decision. By your logic, the terrorists are courageous for fighting back against the US for the wrongs they believe were done to them, in the only way available to them. Shall we applaud the actions of the 9/11ers too, for their courage in standing up to the 'Great Satan?' Eco
The only mistake (that I see) in Terry's analogy is that he wrote "USA" instead of "UN". But then again, maybe it was on purpose. So often, the people that want to blame the US for everything forget that the economic sanctions against Iraq were fully supported by the UN. It was these pre-war sanctions that Dave Huff mentioned in his message that Terry responded to. I agree that USA != Police. I'm honestly not a big fan of our current "regime change" in Iraq. But on the other hand - Saddam was killing his people, an important region was becoming more and more unstable, Saddam had a history of invading his neighbors, our "intelligence" said he was creating WMDs and supporting terror. The UN sanctions were not effecting Saddam's abilities, instead he chose to let Iraqis die from lack of food and medicine while he built, furnished and fortified new palaces. I've yet to hear a credible alternative action that makes sense. Assasination? His son(s) or generals take over. No real change. More sanctions? No reason to think they would work any better than the original sanctions. The US tried to build a significantly representative coalition via the UN to put the fear of Allah into Saddam and we were shot down by others (France, Germany, Russia, China to name the biggies). In all honesty, if they get on board instead of stonewalling there is a damn good chance that Saddam runs away without a shot fired. Eco Jones wrote: It's not courage when there's no real consequences to a decision. Huh? No real consequences??!! People are dying! Soldiers, civilians, diplomats, aid workers! Iraqis, Americans, Brits, etc... The consequences are enormous. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
The only mistake (that I see) in Terry's analogy is that he wrote "USA" instead of "UN". But then again, maybe it was on purpose. So often, the people that want to blame the US for everything forget that the economic sanctions against Iraq were fully supported by the UN. It was these pre-war sanctions that Dave Huff mentioned in his message that Terry responded to. I agree that USA != Police. I'm honestly not a big fan of our current "regime change" in Iraq. But on the other hand - Saddam was killing his people, an important region was becoming more and more unstable, Saddam had a history of invading his neighbors, our "intelligence" said he was creating WMDs and supporting terror. The UN sanctions were not effecting Saddam's abilities, instead he chose to let Iraqis die from lack of food and medicine while he built, furnished and fortified new palaces. I've yet to hear a credible alternative action that makes sense. Assasination? His son(s) or generals take over. No real change. More sanctions? No reason to think they would work any better than the original sanctions. The US tried to build a significantly representative coalition via the UN to put the fear of Allah into Saddam and we were shot down by others (France, Germany, Russia, China to name the biggies). In all honesty, if they get on board instead of stonewalling there is a damn good chance that Saddam runs away without a shot fired. Eco Jones wrote: It's not courage when there's no real consequences to a decision. Huh? No real consequences??!! People are dying! Soldiers, civilians, diplomats, aid workers! Iraqis, Americans, Brits, etc... The consequences are enormous. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: I've yet to hear a credible alternative action that makes sense. Well, keep in mind I still suffer from idealistic-disease, but I would have announced to the people of Iraq that anyone who wants to can come live in Northern Canada, where there's lots and lots of opportunity to live a decent, hardworking, life, free from oppression (as long as you can put up with the cold). Then (if we had the resources) I would have had a whole bunch of boats and trucks pick up the people who wanted to come over here. Those who want to stay should remain in Iraq; then it would have been their choice. Live free peacefully, or stay oppressed in your home. We took a similar stance with slavery, (I _think_ - I'm not sure what the immigration policies were at that time, it's extremely possible our history books have romanticized it.) (Oh, and my only issue with what Terry wrote was that I just resent the implication that the US are acting as the 'police', because that implies that they're acting on behalf of orders from a higher governing body, which just isn't true.) Mike Mullikin wrote: No real consequences??!! People are dying! Soldiers, civilians, diplomats, aid workers! Iraqis, Americans, Brits, etc... The consequences are enormous. Seen individually, the consequences are horrible. But as a _whole_, has America really been affected by it? Courage on the part of the soldiers, diplomats, aid workers, Iraqis, and all the rest who are risking their lives - yes. Courage on the part of the country - I just don't see it. The smattering of American lives affected by Iraq has minimal effect on the country, mostly because most of those lives aren't in America anyway. Eco
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: I've yet to hear a credible alternative action that makes sense. Well, keep in mind I still suffer from idealistic-disease, but I would have announced to the people of Iraq that anyone who wants to can come live in Northern Canada, where there's lots and lots of opportunity to live a decent, hardworking, life, free from oppression (as long as you can put up with the cold). Then (if we had the resources) I would have had a whole bunch of boats and trucks pick up the people who wanted to come over here. Those who want to stay should remain in Iraq; then it would have been their choice. Live free peacefully, or stay oppressed in your home. We took a similar stance with slavery, (I _think_ - I'm not sure what the immigration policies were at that time, it's extremely possible our history books have romanticized it.) (Oh, and my only issue with what Terry wrote was that I just resent the implication that the US are acting as the 'police', because that implies that they're acting on behalf of orders from a higher governing body, which just isn't true.) Mike Mullikin wrote: No real consequences??!! People are dying! Soldiers, civilians, diplomats, aid workers! Iraqis, Americans, Brits, etc... The consequences are enormous. Seen individually, the consequences are horrible. But as a _whole_, has America really been affected by it? Courage on the part of the soldiers, diplomats, aid workers, Iraqis, and all the rest who are risking their lives - yes. Courage on the part of the country - I just don't see it. The smattering of American lives affected by Iraq has minimal effect on the country, mostly because most of those lives aren't in America anyway. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: Well, keep in mind I still suffer from idealistic-disease, but... :omg: Forgetting the required logistics, the burden on your socialized services would have been suicide. Not to mention, Iraqis did not have free will under Saddam. Eco Jones wrote: Seen individually, the consequences are horrible. But as a _whole_, has America really been affected by World public opinion is very significant. Not only for future international squabbles, negotiations and treaties but also from a business perspective. Lastly and least importantly IMO, the Bush administration risks it re-election chances. Ignoring the loss of life, I'd say the consequences are still VERY significant. Eco Jones wrote: (Oh, and my only issue with what Terry wrote was that I just resent the implication that the US are acting as the 'police', because that implies that they're acting on behalf of orders from a higher governing body, which just isn't true.) Regardless of what Terry wrote (specifically) the sanctions against Iraq were UN sanctions, not US sanctions. In that case, the UN was acting as police and IMO (as in Terry's analogy) the UN should NOT be blamed for deaths in Iraq that can be indirectly tied to the sanctions and directly tied to Saddam. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Eco Jones wrote: Well, keep in mind I still suffer from idealistic-disease, but... :omg: Forgetting the required logistics, the burden on your socialized services would have been suicide. Not to mention, Iraqis did not have free will under Saddam. Eco Jones wrote: Seen individually, the consequences are horrible. But as a _whole_, has America really been affected by World public opinion is very significant. Not only for future international squabbles, negotiations and treaties but also from a business perspective. Lastly and least importantly IMO, the Bush administration risks it re-election chances. Ignoring the loss of life, I'd say the consequences are still VERY significant. Eco Jones wrote: (Oh, and my only issue with what Terry wrote was that I just resent the implication that the US are acting as the 'police', because that implies that they're acting on behalf of orders from a higher governing body, which just isn't true.) Regardless of what Terry wrote (specifically) the sanctions against Iraq were UN sanctions, not US sanctions. In that case, the UN was acting as police and IMO (as in Terry's analogy) the UN should NOT be blamed for deaths in Iraq that can be indirectly tied to the sanctions and directly tied to Saddam. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: the burden on your socialized services would have been suicide. Hey, I said they could make a living, not suck off the system. Do you know how much work it would be to make a living in Northern Canada? Besides, how much did y'all spend on Iraq? If it was really for humanitarian purposes, this would have cost even less to help out with. However, we both know the US has other interests in the Middle East. Mike Mullikin wrote: I'd say the consequences are still VERY significant. America's goals, ideals, or attitude appear to not have changed at all. If a man has to walk around a rock, but the path remains the same, the man has not changed; the path is longer, the destination is the same, the way he travels is the same, so in the long term, the rock was really inconsequential. Mike Mullikin wrote: Regardless of what Terry wrote Nah, I don't think I'll 'regardless' since my comment was directed at what he actually wrote. Eco
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: the burden on your socialized services would have been suicide. Hey, I said they could make a living, not suck off the system. Do you know how much work it would be to make a living in Northern Canada? Besides, how much did y'all spend on Iraq? If it was really for humanitarian purposes, this would have cost even less to help out with. However, we both know the US has other interests in the Middle East. Mike Mullikin wrote: I'd say the consequences are still VERY significant. America's goals, ideals, or attitude appear to not have changed at all. If a man has to walk around a rock, but the path remains the same, the man has not changed; the path is longer, the destination is the same, the way he travels is the same, so in the long term, the rock was really inconsequential. Mike Mullikin wrote: Regardless of what Terry wrote Nah, I don't think I'll 'regardless' since my comment was directed at what he actually wrote. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: Do you know how much work it would be to make a living in Northern Canada? A bunch of desert folk trying to survive in the Canadian tundra? It would be a full time job burying the dead. So much for your humanitarian efforts. ;P Eco Jones wrote: Besides, how much did y'all spend on Iraq? If it was really for humanitarian purposes, this would have cost even less to help out with. Sorry, if you and Canada want to play in the big leagues you foot the bill by yourselves. Eco Jones wrote: If a man has to walk around a rock, but the path remains the same, the man has not changed; the path is longer, the destination is the same, the way he travels is the same, so in the long term, the rock was really inconsequential. Nice analogy, but Terry's was better. ;P Seriously though, if the man arives on the far side of the rock bloodied, limping and less prepared to survive the journey ahead I'd say the rock had conquences. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
In Rwanda, 800,000 people were exterminated in 100 days. Remember me what the international community did? If human rights violation is a case to wage war (and I would like it), then why is it limited to countries with natural resources? Because human rights aren't the core for an intervention.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
Eco Jones wrote: Do you know how much work it would be to make a living in Northern Canada? A bunch of desert folk trying to survive in the Canadian tundra? It would be a full time job burying the dead. So much for your humanitarian efforts. ;P Eco Jones wrote: Besides, how much did y'all spend on Iraq? If it was really for humanitarian purposes, this would have cost even less to help out with. Sorry, if you and Canada want to play in the big leagues you foot the bill by yourselves. Eco Jones wrote: If a man has to walk around a rock, but the path remains the same, the man has not changed; the path is longer, the destination is the same, the way he travels is the same, so in the long term, the rock was really inconsequential. Nice analogy, but Terry's was better. ;P Seriously though, if the man arives on the far side of the rock bloodied, limping and less prepared to survive the journey ahead I'd say the rock had conquences. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: So much for your humanitarian efforts The will to survive is strong. If people really want to live free, then they will adjust. Do you really think so little of the Iraqi people? Mike Mullikin wrote: Sorry, if you and Canada want to play in the big leagues you foot the bill by yourselves. That's a compliment considering that you seem to consider the 'big leagues' to be invading countries. :P So much for the desire to 'help' the Iraqi people, huh? Oh, that's right - the US will only help if it benefits the US. Mike Mullikin wrote: Nice analogy, but Terry's was better. Yes, if you mean that it appealed to false sympathies instead of being realistic. Eco