War Is Naughty
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: - but they have abrogated their relevance by allowing nations like France to prevent justifiable military action. Except UK and US, no one would have voted the resolution authorizing war. So I suppose that by France you mean the Rest of the World. That's flattering, but really unfair for all the other countries. Outside the US, we are not convinced at all the goal was to oust a dictator, but to seize an important strategical part of the World, ousting the dictator being a side effect. After all, there are many dictatorships around the world, some of them really connected to terrorism, making really WMD and exporting weapons all around the world, and that's the one (nonetheless an ugly, dirty one) who wasn't involved in all the activities mentioned above who was invaded. Terry O`Nolley wrote: A culture is said to be civilized when [...] whether a society is civilized or not All what you said is true but is related to a limit, a "civilization level", which is totally subjective and generally fixed to define two teams, "us" and "them". IMO you forgot the concept of Law, "civilized" countries would then be the ones guaranteeing some basic rights (always this limit) to their citizen. Welfare could also be a criterion, could a country letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
KaЯl wrote: Except UK and US, no one would have voted the resolution authorizing war. So I suppose that by France you mean the Rest of the World. That's flattering, but really unfair for all the other countries. They had already authorized war in UNSCR 1441. They also authorized war at the end of the first gulf war - a war that ended in a conditional sieze-fire. Conditions which were violated by Iraq. KaЯl wrote: Outside the US, we are not convinced at all the goal was to oust a dictator, You don't believe that the goal of invading iraq was to remove Saddam? It may not have been the *only* goal, but you would have to be crazy to think the US didn't want to remove him. KaЯl wrote: but to seize an important strategical part of the World, ousting the dictator being a side effect. After all, there are many dictatorships around the world, some of them really connected to terrorism, making really WMD and exporting weapons all around the world, and that's the one (nonetheless an ugly, dirty one) who wasn't involved in all the activities mentioned above who was invaded. I agree - our ultimate aim in removing Saddam was to get US troops on the ground in the heart of the Middle-East so that we can prepare our troops for land invasions of Syria and Iran if necessary and to be able to begin turning the screws on Saudi Arabia to democratize. All of you guys that share the opinions of the terrorists (they don't want the US spoiling their fun either) will need to find something new to complain about when the middle-east is fully democratized and organized terrorism has been eliminated. KaЯl wrote: IMO you forgot the concept of Law, "civilized" countries would then be the ones guaranteeing some basic rights (always this limit) to their citizen. Welfare could also be a criterion, could a country letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized? That is a personal opinion. If you want to define civilization as having x% under the poverty level then I agree. But if you are trying to say that the US is therefore uncivilized, I would ask that you use the WHO's definition of "poverty". Believe me - there are teeming millions in China that are starving to death who would LOVE to make $10,000 a year. Nice try.
-
lol! :laugh: Actually, I'm a military history and theory nut. I am a firm believer that Machiavelli and Clausewitz were correct in saying that Diplomacy and Warfare are intrinsically linked. Although I do have to subtract points from ol' Nicolo, as he basically wrote The Prince to kiss the Borgia's collective asses... Jeremy Kimball
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Diplomacy and Warfare are intrinsically linked Exactly. In many "diplomatic" instances there would be no incentive for one side to negotiate or negotiate in good faith without the ultimate threat of military action against them. And the flip side is that unless you have the military power to back up diplomacy, no one is going to give your diplomats the time of day. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: The root question remains: Who decides? When does "reclaiming stolen land" or "surpressing a rebellion" become simple agression? Good question. I believe that war is the only option when you find yourself (as a nation) powerless. Just like someone fighting back in self defence - you have to because there's no cop around to help you. Based on this assumption I feel that there's a need for an international cop. And by that I do not mean the US alone. Imagine yourself if a single individual claimed to be the bringer of justice - could you trust that single individual? Probably not, if it's a total stranger. US would just be looked upon as a bully, not someone there to serve and protect. And this is, I believe, what we see today. What's needed is a lot better cooperation between nations, to make sure smaller and poorer countries feel that they are protected, and bigger and richer countries won't bully the smaller and poorer. In order to make that possible, all nations must have a say. Today we have something called the U.N. It's working, but perhaps not as good as we'd like. Perhaps it's time for the U.N. to step forward in its progress. Make it stronger and more able to punish those who do not play fair. We need better international polices and judicional systems. An international society instead of an international anarchy in order words. We're not there yet, and probably won't be there for a long time, but here's one hoping anyway. :) -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
Yes, but when nations of the world delegate authority to a unifying governance, the individual nation-state's authority to self-govern (their "power", per se) is impacted. Where do you draw that particular line? What you are suggesting is a blend of a (forgive me) Star Trek-ian ideal utopia and a confederation. The problem with a utopia is they are unrealistic. The problem with a confederation is it is essentially a paper tiger. All bark and no bite. There is nothing preventing a complete secession occurring if a particularly power nation (or block of nations) decides that the UN has stepped too far into the self-will of those governments. Ah well...nice idea, tho :) Jeremy Kimball
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: The root question remains: Who decides? When does "reclaiming stolen land" or "surpressing a rebellion" become simple agression? Good question. I believe that war is the only option when you find yourself (as a nation) powerless. Just like someone fighting back in self defence - you have to because there's no cop around to help you. Based on this assumption I feel that there's a need for an international cop. And by that I do not mean the US alone. Imagine yourself if a single individual claimed to be the bringer of justice - could you trust that single individual? Probably not, if it's a total stranger. US would just be looked upon as a bully, not someone there to serve and protect. And this is, I believe, what we see today. What's needed is a lot better cooperation between nations, to make sure smaller and poorer countries feel that they are protected, and bigger and richer countries won't bully the smaller and poorer. In order to make that possible, all nations must have a say. Today we have something called the U.N. It's working, but perhaps not as good as we'd like. Perhaps it's time for the U.N. to step forward in its progress. Make it stronger and more able to punish those who do not play fair. We need better international polices and judicional systems. An international society instead of an international anarchy in order words. We're not there yet, and probably won't be there for a long time, but here's one hoping anyway. :) -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: What's needed is a lot better cooperation between nations, to make sure smaller and poorer countries feel that they are protected, and bigger and richer countries won't bully the smaller and poorer. In order to make that possible, all nations must have a say. Today we have something called the U.N. It's working, but perhaps not as good as we'd like. Perhaps it's time for the U.N. to step forward in its progress. Make it stronger and more able to punish those who do not play fair. I agree! I'd love to see a UN that kicked out nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. But for it to be effective, they need to completely stop trade with countries that do not qualify for UN membership. And they need to actually act like the enforcers of law and not just a bunch of milksop debaters. Make the UN military a standing Army. Order violators to comply or have their doors kicked in. I have always said I hope I live to see the day when the only military in the entire world is an international force. Until the world is prepared to combat terrorism and the governments that sponsor it the US will have to do it alone and endure the slings and arrows of jealous malcontents.
-
Iraq blah blah blah.... Is anyone else tired of hearing this same old argument over and over? It is like a fad to "be against" or "be for" the war. Can't wait till this hip cause passes and we can talk about something else. I feel I am not the only one who is as fatigued by it?
cDonts wrote: I feel I am not the only one who is as fatigued by it? Probably not, but there are plenty of people who post on those threads..........
-
Yes, but when nations of the world delegate authority to a unifying governance, the individual nation-state's authority to self-govern (their "power", per se) is impacted. Where do you draw that particular line? What you are suggesting is a blend of a (forgive me) Star Trek-ian ideal utopia and a confederation. The problem with a utopia is they are unrealistic. The problem with a confederation is it is essentially a paper tiger. All bark and no bite. There is nothing preventing a complete secession occurring if a particularly power nation (or block of nations) decides that the UN has stepped too far into the self-will of those governments. Ah well...nice idea, tho :) Jeremy Kimball
Jeremy Kimball wrote: What you are suggesting is a blend of a (forgive me) Star Trek-ian ideal utopia and a confederation. The problem with a utopia is they are unrealistic. The United States of America is working fine, isn't it? The European Union is also working very well. And if we look back at the history of the above mentioned unions, it's almost unbelievable that we are where we are today. It's not a utopia! And yes, it's kind of Star Trek-ian. But I don't fancy these ideas because I like Star Trek, I like Star Trek because it implements these fancy ideas. :) -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: What you are suggesting is a blend of a (forgive me) Star Trek-ian ideal utopia and a confederation. The problem with a utopia is they are unrealistic. The United States of America is working fine, isn't it? The European Union is also working very well. And if we look back at the history of the above mentioned unions, it's almost unbelievable that we are where we are today. It's not a utopia! And yes, it's kind of Star Trek-ian. But I don't fancy these ideas because I like Star Trek, I like Star Trek because it implements these fancy ideas. :) -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
The United States has deviated so far from the original Republic it's not even comparable anymore :) (See "Restoration of the Republic", by Gary Hart) And even with those deviations, there is constant conflict between the states and the Federal government on the issues of States Rights (especially now with the validation of Gay and Lesbian Marriages) It is not entirely absurd to imagine a scenario where just the right events occur to cause enough of a localized outcry as to warrant another try at State Secession... The European Union...now that does look like it's doing ok, but realize the limits the actual "Union" has over it's member states. I admit I'm not knowledgable enough to debate those, but AFAIK, it pretty much is limited to open borders and financial policies... Oh, btw, I wasn't bashing Star Trek (I'm no Trekkie, I guess I'm a "Warsie", if anything...how appropros), just saying that there is no way such a society can exist in the current political climate. Jeremy Kimball
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: What's needed is a lot better cooperation between nations, to make sure smaller and poorer countries feel that they are protected, and bigger and richer countries won't bully the smaller and poorer. In order to make that possible, all nations must have a say. Today we have something called the U.N. It's working, but perhaps not as good as we'd like. Perhaps it's time for the U.N. to step forward in its progress. Make it stronger and more able to punish those who do not play fair. I agree! I'd love to see a UN that kicked out nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. But for it to be effective, they need to completely stop trade with countries that do not qualify for UN membership. And they need to actually act like the enforcers of law and not just a bunch of milksop debaters. Make the UN military a standing Army. Order violators to comply or have their doors kicked in. I have always said I hope I live to see the day when the only military in the entire world is an international force. Until the world is prepared to combat terrorism and the governments that sponsor it the US will have to do it alone and endure the slings and arrows of jealous malcontents.
I agree with you largely. (Who would've thought? ;P) I'd like to see a more lenient, but fair, way to deal with rogue states. Perhaps give them a fine that stings a little, but shows the UN means business. If they don't comply, or violates the rules of UN again, they're to be blocked for some period. As I don't believe in the death penalty, full annihilation of states not complying is out of the question.. (I know you want to Terry! ;)) Terry O`Nolley wrote: the US will have to do it alone and endure the slings and arrows of jealous malcontents There is a simple, and perhaps radical, way to avoid that. Leave the Israelis high and dry and remove all military units from the middle east. -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
-
I agree with you largely. (Who would've thought? ;P) I'd like to see a more lenient, but fair, way to deal with rogue states. Perhaps give them a fine that stings a little, but shows the UN means business. If they don't comply, or violates the rules of UN again, they're to be blocked for some period. As I don't believe in the death penalty, full annihilation of states not complying is out of the question.. (I know you want to Terry! ;)) Terry O`Nolley wrote: the US will have to do it alone and endure the slings and arrows of jealous malcontents There is a simple, and perhaps radical, way to avoid that. Leave the Israelis high and dry and remove all military units from the middle east. -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: As I don't believe in the death penalty, full annihilation of states not complying is out of the question.. Not full annihilation of states just because they don't comply with those regulations necessary for commerce - I'm talking about overthrowing governments that continue to commit crimes against humanity against their own citizens. Once the world realizes that that brand of government will no longer be tolerated use of military force probably won't be necessary. The only reason those governments are still around is because their citizens know that the UN won't do shit if they rebel against their oppressors and start getting slaughtered (like after the first gulf war). Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: There is a simple, and perhaps radical, way to avoid that. Leave the Israelis high and dry and remove all military units from the middle east. ???? First off, the Israelis are our democratic allies. Secondly, even if we did that do you really believe terrorists will stop trying attack us? Third, without the threat of US intervention in the region there would be a massive war - the likes of which the world hasn't seen in half a century - Russia and France would be selling weapons hand over fist and when the dust settled I'd be surprised if there were less than 5 million casualties.
-
JoeSox wrote: research into the turning point for Rome I actually wrote a paper on that very topic...basically outlined how every major reason for the downfall of the Empire is currently occurring as we speak. Jeremy Kimball
Jeremy Kimball wrote: I actually wrote a paper on that very topic...basically outlined how every major reason for the downfall of the Empire is currently occurring as we speak. :cool: I just wrote something up on the Commission of Presidential Debates. I wanted to submit it as freelance work to the Washington Post and other national newspapers. I might just turn it into a webpage and pdf, so people can find it on the web, maybe, I haven't decided yet. Perhaps you should do the same, or better yet we could all write a book together. Ha! Like Nishbot and the other dude(sorry I forgot your name:-O) Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
-
the title is taken from a banner in the London Demo today A couple of things that my have gone unnoticed Perle says war was illegal http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5259.htm[^] An interview with John Pilger http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5260.htm[^] I saw the statue of Bush get pulled down on the news. No doubt there will pictures of that everywhere tomorrow but I never saw the Counter Insurgency Pretzel Army or whatever they call themselves with their giant pretzels. And finally a :rose: For those poor people in Istanbul today.:(( pseudonym67 Neural Dot Net Articles 1-11 Start Here Fuzzy Dot Net Articles 1-4 Start Here PathFinder Game Of Life 2 Life Wars
Talk of war always reminds me of this: "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -Bertrand Russell "It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something." -Ornette Coleman "Philosophy is a study that lets us be unhappy more intelligently." -Anon.
-
the title is taken from a banner in the London Demo today A couple of things that my have gone unnoticed Perle says war was illegal http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5259.htm[^] An interview with John Pilger http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5260.htm[^] I saw the statue of Bush get pulled down on the news. No doubt there will pictures of that everywhere tomorrow but I never saw the Counter Insurgency Pretzel Army or whatever they call themselves with their giant pretzels. And finally a :rose: For those poor people in Istanbul today.:(( pseudonym67 Neural Dot Net Articles 1-11 Start Here Fuzzy Dot Net Articles 1-4 Start Here PathFinder Game Of Life 2 Life Wars
Won't layout the whole reply I had planned, least I be accused of Trolling. But .... The second artical comes from socialist worker, I don't know if the US have a similar paper, but it's written by students with an axe to grind. They have very intelligent comment on occasion, but for the most part, editorial integrity can get mired by their beliefs. I'm not even going to comment on the legality of war. I'll just say that War is a morally offensive necessity, bought about by Bourgeoisie suppressing the Proletariat. Now when I hear the word troll, I think "Monty Python, holy grail, she's a witch"
-
KaЯl wrote: Except UK and US, no one would have voted the resolution authorizing war. So I suppose that by France you mean the Rest of the World. That's flattering, but really unfair for all the other countries. They had already authorized war in UNSCR 1441. They also authorized war at the end of the first gulf war - a war that ended in a conditional sieze-fire. Conditions which were violated by Iraq. KaЯl wrote: Outside the US, we are not convinced at all the goal was to oust a dictator, You don't believe that the goal of invading iraq was to remove Saddam? It may not have been the *only* goal, but you would have to be crazy to think the US didn't want to remove him. KaЯl wrote: but to seize an important strategical part of the World, ousting the dictator being a side effect. After all, there are many dictatorships around the world, some of them really connected to terrorism, making really WMD and exporting weapons all around the world, and that's the one (nonetheless an ugly, dirty one) who wasn't involved in all the activities mentioned above who was invaded. I agree - our ultimate aim in removing Saddam was to get US troops on the ground in the heart of the Middle-East so that we can prepare our troops for land invasions of Syria and Iran if necessary and to be able to begin turning the screws on Saudi Arabia to democratize. All of you guys that share the opinions of the terrorists (they don't want the US spoiling their fun either) will need to find something new to complain about when the middle-east is fully democratized and organized terrorism has been eliminated. KaЯl wrote: IMO you forgot the concept of Law, "civilized" countries would then be the ones guaranteeing some basic rights (always this limit) to their citizen. Welfare could also be a criterion, could a country letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized? That is a personal opinion. If you want to define civilization as having x% under the poverty level then I agree. But if you are trying to say that the US is therefore uncivilized, I would ask that you use the WHO's definition of "poverty". Believe me - there are teeming millions in China that are starving to death who would LOVE to make $10,000 a year. Nice try.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: you would have to be crazy to think the US didn't want to remove him Between "remove him" and "take his place", there is a subtle difference. Terry O`Nolley wrote: All of you guys that share the opinions of the terrorists There's no one there. Terry O`Nolley wrote: will need to find something new to complain about when the middle-east is fully democratized and organized terrorism has been eliminated. We are far, far away from that. Moreover, I don't think we are going this way. Near and Middle East are IMO much more dangerous places since the invasion. Terry O`Nolley wrote: That is a personal opinion cool, you've noticed the "IMO". Terry O`Nolley wrote: But if you are trying to say that the US is therefore uncivilized, I would ask that you use the WHO's definition of "poverty My point was rather to say it's possible to find measures or levels which can include/exclude quiet any country into/from the list of the "civilized" ones. The "civilization" argument is too subjective to be convincing, therefore used.
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: As I don't believe in the death penalty, full annihilation of states not complying is out of the question.. Not full annihilation of states just because they don't comply with those regulations necessary for commerce - I'm talking about overthrowing governments that continue to commit crimes against humanity against their own citizens. Once the world realizes that that brand of government will no longer be tolerated use of military force probably won't be necessary. The only reason those governments are still around is because their citizens know that the UN won't do shit if they rebel against their oppressors and start getting slaughtered (like after the first gulf war). Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: There is a simple, and perhaps radical, way to avoid that. Leave the Israelis high and dry and remove all military units from the middle east. ???? First off, the Israelis are our democratic allies. Secondly, even if we did that do you really believe terrorists will stop trying attack us? Third, without the threat of US intervention in the region there would be a massive war - the likes of which the world hasn't seen in half a century - Russia and France would be selling weapons hand over fist and when the dust settled I'd be surprised if there were less than 5 million casualties.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: First off, the Israelis are our democratic allies. Yes, but at some point, your own citizens (family) become more important than allies (friends). Terry O`Nolley wrote: Secondly, even if we did that do you really believe terrorists will stop trying attack us? Yes I think so. Their reason for attacking you is your presence and support to Israel. Over there in the middle east, you're seen as a threat simply. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Third, without the threat of US intervention in the region there would be a massive war - the likes of which the world hasn't seen in half a century - Russia and France would be selling weapons hand over fist and when the dust settled I'd be surprised if there were less than 5 million casualties. Yes... Let them die and let god sort em out.. ;) Of course, I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. But it's one way of getting rid of terrorists (at least foreign ones). -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: but they have abrogated their relevance by allowing nations like France to prevent justifiable military action. While I am no fan of the Frogs, the fact that they are a member of the UN (and a Security Council member) is justification enough. Regardless of the reasons for allowing France a seat on the Council, they occupy that seat. We have to heed their words. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Warfare does not determine whether a society is civilized or not. Yes, but look at every major civilization in history, and you will see the reason why they became civilized is because of a hefty amount of bloodshed. Egyptian, Greek, Roman, English, ad infinitum. Terry O`Nolley wrote: You actually think this is possible with the current state of the art in telecommunications/mass media/internet?!?!?!? Yes I do. The media is far from incorruptible or impartial. Observe the take on the exact same event as reported by American, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic news sources. Simply because there are alternatives does not neccesarily dictate that every individual (or nations) will listen to them if they are in conflict with a more "local" point of view. Jeremy Kimball
Jeremy Kimball wrote: We have to heed their words. So, you're willing to cede the power to decide what should be done to defend your country to the whims of other countries, regardless of who they are? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." by: JAMES TRAUB New York Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: - but they have abrogated their relevance by allowing nations like France to prevent justifiable military action. Except UK and US, no one would have voted the resolution authorizing war. So I suppose that by France you mean the Rest of the World. That's flattering, but really unfair for all the other countries. Outside the US, we are not convinced at all the goal was to oust a dictator, but to seize an important strategical part of the World, ousting the dictator being a side effect. After all, there are many dictatorships around the world, some of them really connected to terrorism, making really WMD and exporting weapons all around the world, and that's the one (nonetheless an ugly, dirty one) who wasn't involved in all the activities mentioned above who was invaded. Terry O`Nolley wrote: A culture is said to be civilized when [...] whether a society is civilized or not All what you said is true but is related to a limit, a "civilization level", which is totally subjective and generally fixed to define two teams, "us" and "them". IMO you forgot the concept of Law, "civilized" countries would then be the ones guaranteeing some basic rights (always this limit) to their citizen. Welfare could also be a criterion, could a country letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
KaЯl wrote: could a country letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized? How about one that let 15,000 of it's elderly die? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." by: JAMES TRAUB New York Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy