War or not?
-
It is my opinion that the US should not be policeman to the world. I'm positive the world doesn't want us to be it's policeman. But, like Paul says "what say do we have"? So until I/we can convince the US government the error of it's ways... it is the policeman. With that as it is, a policeman can only do his job if he can apprehend outlaws, incarcerate or otherwise punish them. Like most other criminals, simply asking a pyscho dictator to stop and play nice just doesn't work. UN resolutions that lack any consequences are equal to saying "Please stop". They do not work. The US initiated a new UN resolution that adds "teeth". It basically says, "Stop and do what we ask or suffer the consequences". Anything less would be a waste of time. Now just like a policeman, the US does not want to see anybody get hurt. We would much rather the whole situation be solved peacefully and have the psycho dictator do what is asked, but like a good policeman we are prepared to deliver the consequences if required. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: It is my opinion that the US should not be policeman to the world. I'm positive the world doesn't want us to be it's policeman. Damn straight. Ok so convincing the US of the "error of it's ways" is part one of getting the "rest of us" to stop bashing the US. The next part would be how do we form a new police organisation that is supported by at least a majority of the world? The US won't stop policing until it knows it is safe, that it's safety is being protected by a world police force. Obviously another question is just what the hell happens when the ruling of the world police force goes against what the US believes? Most of the "rest of us" would probably think the US would just stand up, kick the world police in the nuts and do it's thing all over again. i.e. not respect what the world thought. i.e. it would still be the US driven world police force. Ugh.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
-
Paul Watson wrote: != a good idea; people will get confused();
if(!idea.IsGood()) people.SetConfused(true);:rolleyes: BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpsonbrianwelsch wrote: if(!idea.IsGood()) people.SetConfused(true); The sad bit is that we all understand it (and some of us would prefer people to talk that way!)... :rolleyes:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
-
I tend to think people never felt war was glorious, but rather that it was made to seem that way in the history texts. General populations just usually never have too much say in the matter. I agree about not being as apt to believe our leaders, however, simply because we have access to more information than people did 100 years ago. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
brianwelsch wrote: I tend to think people never felt war was glorious I get the impression from reading interviews with WWI diggers that they very much thought it would be a glorious adventure, in service of King and Country. People who did not go were shunned, and mailed white feathers to indicate cowardice. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
Christian Graus wrote: but what I really mean is that we're not as starry eyed generally, or apt to believe whatever our leaders tell us. Or even to believe that war is a glorious thing. It does seem that way, can't really compare though what with being so young and all :) Are we in a better position then? Now that we are more critical, more cynical about our leaders and their motiviations? What has it brought us, more understanding, or merely just a general dislike of leaders but without really knowing why? Would things that could have happened back in the 60s (Nam was in the 60s right?) not be possible now because we put our foots down and say "no, that is not what we the people want Mr. Leader" ?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
Paul Watson wrote: Are we in a better position then? No, because the information we get is biased. Paul Watson wrote: (Nam was in the 60s right?) late 60's, ended in 72, I believe. Actually, the 60's was the start of it, people actually SAW war happening on their TV and realised it was not all so much fun. Before that, Hollywood painted a rosy picture in John Wayne movies and the like. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: It is my opinion that the US should not be policeman to the world. I'm positive the world doesn't want us to be it's policeman. Damn straight. Ok so convincing the US of the "error of it's ways" is part one of getting the "rest of us" to stop bashing the US. The next part would be how do we form a new police organisation that is supported by at least a majority of the world? The US won't stop policing until it knows it is safe, that it's safety is being protected by a world police force. Obviously another question is just what the hell happens when the ruling of the world police force goes against what the US believes? Most of the "rest of us" would probably think the US would just stand up, kick the world police in the nuts and do it's thing all over again. i.e. not respect what the world thought. i.e. it would still be the US driven world police force. Ugh.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
Paul Watson wrote: The next part would be how do we form a new police organisation that is supported by at least a majority of the world? This part is simple - if you take the US out of the equation the UN is perfectly suited to the task and the "rest of you" would initially be thrilled. "Ding, dong the witch (US) is dead!!!" Paul Watson wrote: The US won't stop policing until it knows it is safe, that it's safety is being protected by a world police force. This is where you might be wrong. It would take a very long time before you could convince even the US public (let alone the US government) that a world police force is a good idea. We have zero (0.0000, no, nada, zilch) faith in anybody except ourselves. (I know, I know, that is part of the current problem). :) IMHO it's more likely the US develops a star wars defense system or some kind of super bubble around our land and reverts to isolationism rather than a world police force before we give up the badge. Paul Watson wrote: Obviously another question is just what the hell happens when the ruling of the world police force goes against what the US believes? Since we would be protected all snug and warm in our bubble we wouldn't give a $hit. More interesting to me would be what would your new world police force do ten minutes after it took the badge and it yelled "stop" and the dictator da jour thumbed his nose at you? Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
Paul Watson wrote: The next part would be how do we form a new police organisation that is supported by at least a majority of the world? This part is simple - if you take the US out of the equation the UN is perfectly suited to the task and the "rest of you" would initially be thrilled. "Ding, dong the witch (US) is dead!!!" Paul Watson wrote: The US won't stop policing until it knows it is safe, that it's safety is being protected by a world police force. This is where you might be wrong. It would take a very long time before you could convince even the US public (let alone the US government) that a world police force is a good idea. We have zero (0.0000, no, nada, zilch) faith in anybody except ourselves. (I know, I know, that is part of the current problem). :) IMHO it's more likely the US develops a star wars defense system or some kind of super bubble around our land and reverts to isolationism rather than a world police force before we give up the badge. Paul Watson wrote: Obviously another question is just what the hell happens when the ruling of the world police force goes against what the US believes? Since we would be protected all snug and warm in our bubble we wouldn't give a $hit. More interesting to me would be what would your new world police force do ten minutes after it took the badge and it yelled "stop" and the dictator da jour thumbed his nose at you? Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: More interesting to me would be what would your new world police force do ten minutes after it took the badge and it yelled "stop" and the dictator da jour thumbed his nose at you? I certainly have no doubt we need the US. Nobody else is up to the task, nobody is as strong and nobody else is able to focus as the US can. If you revert to isolationism then the rest of the worlds problems are not going to go away. Arabs will still hate the US and won't give up just because every time they come within a hundred thousands miles they get vapourised. Death is no humbler to them. Sure you won't care but the rest of us will just get more pissed off, not less. Sure you won't care, but you should, can't remain cocooned off forever (your cocooned downfall would come from within, from the youth wanting to see the rest of the world, not understanding why you cocooned yourselves off.) Not sure though if the terrorists (I should stop saying Arabs and Muslims I think) would suddenly escalate against the rest of the world without the US there to hold them back. If they do it won't be fun and some countries would probably try and follow the US in just closing off borders, but not many (any?) countries can live isolated like the US can (can you?). I don't know actually. All I know is that the US retreating into a bubble will not help the world, and the US will be poorer for it too (no more Monty Python for you, no more Belgian techno for you! No more Japanese buying Britney Spears! Your old folk in Florida won't be able to take those round the world cruises anymore!) Not sure smart people like yourself would like it either. I like to think the US will think of the rest of the world, or rather it will make it's decisions as part of humanity, not outside of it. Maybe it really will take something monumentally bad to bring about drastic change. In which case we won't have learnt from history, as usual :| Mike Mullikin wrote: This part is simple - if you take the US out of the equation the UN is perfectly suited to the task and the "rest of you" would initially be thrilled. "Ding, dong the witch (US) is dead!!!" The Arab.... I mean terrorists don't like the UN. They think it IS the US. They don't feel they have representation within the UN, African countries feel the same. So take the US out of the UN... well Europe is still considered "the hated west" so the UN still would not be liked. You could totally re-forge the UN but all t
-
What do you say about the war Bush has threaten to do? As I said in a previous message: If he want war then go do it! If he not, then leave it out! Rickard Andersson@Suza Computing C# and C++ programmer from SWEDEN! UIN: 50302279 E-Mail: nikado@pc.nu Speciality: I love C#, ASP.NET and C++!
Oh, Bush wants war. If he goes in, blows up a bunch of people, maybe his popularity will rise a point in the US. I, however, am firmly against anything that would upset Egypt. They already dislike Americans, and this would infuriate them. I am therefore drug into siding with the Egyptians, so I might have a chance of going to college in Cairo (American University at Cairo would be REAL cool). Have a great day, ~ Selevercin If you have a problem with my spelling, just remember that's not my fault. I [as well as everyone else who learned to spell after 1976] blame it on Robert A. Kolpek for U.S. Patent 4,136,395.
-
Paul Watson wrote: The next part would be how do we form a new police organisation that is supported by at least a majority of the world? This part is simple - if you take the US out of the equation the UN is perfectly suited to the task and the "rest of you" would initially be thrilled. "Ding, dong the witch (US) is dead!!!" Paul Watson wrote: The US won't stop policing until it knows it is safe, that it's safety is being protected by a world police force. This is where you might be wrong. It would take a very long time before you could convince even the US public (let alone the US government) that a world police force is a good idea. We have zero (0.0000, no, nada, zilch) faith in anybody except ourselves. (I know, I know, that is part of the current problem). :) IMHO it's more likely the US develops a star wars defense system or some kind of super bubble around our land and reverts to isolationism rather than a world police force before we give up the badge. Paul Watson wrote: Obviously another question is just what the hell happens when the ruling of the world police force goes against what the US believes? Since we would be protected all snug and warm in our bubble we wouldn't give a $hit. More interesting to me would be what would your new world police force do ten minutes after it took the badge and it yelled "stop" and the dictator da jour thumbed his nose at you? Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: IMHO it's more likely the US develops a star wars defense system or some kind of super bubble around our land and reverts to isolationism rather than a world police force before we give up the badge. That option isn't going to happen. The US economic model is so addicted to the resources of others that the US must interfere in other countries for concessions to keep the model working. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
It is my opinion that the US should not be policeman to the world. I'm positive the world doesn't want us to be it's policeman. But, like Paul says "what say do we have"? So until I/we can convince the US government the error of it's ways... it is the policeman. With that as it is, a policeman can only do his job if he can apprehend outlaws, incarcerate or otherwise punish them. Like most other criminals, simply asking a pyscho dictator to stop and play nice just doesn't work. UN resolutions that lack any consequences are equal to saying "Please stop". They do not work. The US initiated a new UN resolution that adds "teeth". It basically says, "Stop and do what we ask or suffer the consequences". Anything less would be a waste of time. Now just like a policeman, the US does not want to see anybody get hurt. We would much rather the whole situation be solved peacefully and have the psycho dictator do what is asked, but like a good policeman we are prepared to deliver the consequences if required. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: It is my opinion that the US should not be policeman to the world. I'm positive the world doesn't want us to be it's policeman. But, like Paul says "what say do we have"? So until I/we can convince the US government the error of it's ways... it is the policeman. Basically I am going to say well said. Now for the however. Right now my perception of the feeling of those around me is that there is basically zero confidence that anyone else will be the policeman. So either we go down the path we are or we (US) sits back and waits for a few more thousand people to be killed doing nothing. Given the above the only immediate course is for the US citizens can take action to let our leaders know we wish that they (the US) be very accountable for any actions the US does take. For long term we need???? I am just brain storming here so take is as such. How about 1) Getting the issues with the ICC worked out or replace it with a group that is acceptable. 2) With in that organization each country supplies part of it's police force (say a branch of Interpol) that works under that courts direction. But it is the local citizens not foreigners in each country. When a country is deemed not being responsible the police force for that country is temporarily supplemented with members from a state that is friendly to it. OK Still nirvana but the best I can do after a 13 hour day. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: IMHO it's more likely the US develops a star wars defense system or some kind of super bubble around our land and reverts to isolationism rather than a world police force before we give up the badge. That option isn't going to happen. The US economic model is so addicted to the resources of others that the US must interfere in other countries for concessions to keep the model working. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: That option isn't going to happen. No, I never meant for it to sound like anything truly possible, but neither IMO is a "world police force" that everyone would respect and support. The LON and UN have been terrible examples of partisanship and back stabbing over the years. None of the "big dog" countries (US, UK, Russia, China) have played fair or even consistent - rightfully leading to a lack of trust from second tier and third world countries. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: More interesting to me would be what would your new world police force do ten minutes after it took the badge and it yelled "stop" and the dictator da jour thumbed his nose at you? I certainly have no doubt we need the US. Nobody else is up to the task, nobody is as strong and nobody else is able to focus as the US can. If you revert to isolationism then the rest of the worlds problems are not going to go away. Arabs will still hate the US and won't give up just because every time they come within a hundred thousands miles they get vapourised. Death is no humbler to them. Sure you won't care but the rest of us will just get more pissed off, not less. Sure you won't care, but you should, can't remain cocooned off forever (your cocooned downfall would come from within, from the youth wanting to see the rest of the world, not understanding why you cocooned yourselves off.) Not sure though if the terrorists (I should stop saying Arabs and Muslims I think) would suddenly escalate against the rest of the world without the US there to hold them back. If they do it won't be fun and some countries would probably try and follow the US in just closing off borders, but not many (any?) countries can live isolated like the US can (can you?). I don't know actually. All I know is that the US retreating into a bubble will not help the world, and the US will be poorer for it too (no more Monty Python for you, no more Belgian techno for you! No more Japanese buying Britney Spears! Your old folk in Florida won't be able to take those round the world cruises anymore!) Not sure smart people like yourself would like it either. I like to think the US will think of the rest of the world, or rather it will make it's decisions as part of humanity, not outside of it. Maybe it really will take something monumentally bad to bring about drastic change. In which case we won't have learnt from history, as usual :| Mike Mullikin wrote: This part is simple - if you take the US out of the equation the UN is perfectly suited to the task and the "rest of you" would initially be thrilled. "Ding, dong the witch (US) is dead!!!" The Arab.... I mean terrorists don't like the UN. They think it IS the US. They don't feel they have representation within the UN, African countries feel the same. So take the US out of the UN... well Europe is still considered "the hated west" so the UN still would not be liked. You could totally re-forge the UN but all t
Paul Watson wrote: not many (any?) countries can live isolated like the US can (can you?). No, not realistically. I didn't mean to sound like I thought it was a viable (or even desirable) option. I just see so much disagreement, spite and outright hatred across the people of the world that I don't give a "world police force" idea any hope at all. :| I think Africa is an excellent example. Take just about any country in the lower two thirds of the continent with the possible exception of SA. In nearly every case they have been somewhat newly freed from European rule, they have huge struggles ahead as they forge a nation, but along with that are huge opportunities for individual and community level improvement, yet... ...they seem to always find a way to fight amongst each other (tribal wars or civil wars) instead of working on the job at hand. This is not exclusive to Africa. I see it everywhere... the Middle East, the old Soviet territories, South America. The growing animosity towards the west seems to me as jealousy for our current stability. Humans simply can't be trusted to live together. :~ Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
Rickard Andersson wrote: As I said in a previous message: If he want war then go do it! If he not, then leave it out! Yes, but what does that mean ? :P I saw a bunch of women in the park yesterday, wearing black, with a sign that said 'women in black against war'. Someone should take a picture and send it to George, because obviously that's what's needed..... I think the real problem is that we're not being told. Peace needs to be defended, that can mean war. But at this point it seems that GWB expects us as Western countries to line up to die with nothing more than rhetoric to spur us on. It's not 1914, we're a bit wiser than the people who died for no reason back then. But as others have said, what the hell can we do about it ? Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: , but what does that mean Exactly what it says! ;P I don't want it to be war but Buch can never make a decision! Rickard Andersson@Suza Computing C# and C++ programmer from SWEDEN! UIN: 50302279 E-Mail: nikado@pc.nu Speciality: I love C#, ASP.NET and C++!
-
Oh, Bush wants war. If he goes in, blows up a bunch of people, maybe his popularity will rise a point in the US. I, however, am firmly against anything that would upset Egypt. They already dislike Americans, and this would infuriate them. I am therefore drug into siding with the Egyptians, so I might have a chance of going to college in Cairo (American University at Cairo would be REAL cool). Have a great day, ~ Selevercin If you have a problem with my spelling, just remember that's not my fault. I [as well as everyone else who learned to spell after 1976] blame it on Robert A. Kolpek for U.S. Patent 4,136,395.
Selevercin wrote: Oh, Bush wants war. If he goes in, blows up a bunch of people, maybe his popularity will rise a point in the US. Right! so then there is no more talk! There is not going to be any more war! :) Rickard Andersson@Suza Computing C# and C++ programmer from SWEDEN! UIN: 50302279 E-Mail: nikado@pc.nu Speciality: I love C#, ASP.NET and C++!
-
Paul Watson wrote: So how do we change the status quo then? A covenant of planetary sovereignty would be a good start. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
I think it was Ronald Reagan who once said
Mankind will never have peace until it's threatened by an outer force. Only then will we unite.
I believe he was right. -- standing so tall, the ground behind no trespassers, on every floor a garden swing, and another door she makes it clear, that everything is hers A place of abode, not far from here, Ms. Van de Veer
-
Paul Watson wrote: != a good idea; people will get confused();
if(!idea.IsGood()) people.SetConfused(true);:rolleyes: BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpsonif(idea.is_good())
std::for_each(people.begin(), people.end(), std::bind1st(std::mem_fun(&People::set_confused), true));for us C++/STL-people (probably excluding Tim Smith ;)) -- standing so tall, the ground behind no trespassers, on every floor a garden swing, and another door she makes it clear, that everything is hers A place of abode, not far from here, Ms. Van de Veer