10 Jan 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeStill waiting - haven't had a decent one yet.
The French blocked the road towards a solution within the framework of the United Nations. What would have been the correct course to take for the US/UK in order to force the Saddam regime to obey the will of the International Community ?
This last question is a question for all those who criticise the US/UK policies. I want to hear what your alternatives are.
Still waiting for an answer .... maybe ianpickering ? ....
Yes we hate the French as well, so I'm with you on that one. Maybe if WMD had been found and the case for war not contained deliberate half truths I would have more sympathy with your viewpoint. Israel has also failed to comply with many UN resolutions. Are you going to bomb the crap out of them as well?
Sadam was 'taking the piss' with the UN, but a little more time would have given the weapons inspectors the opportunity to deliver a damning report.This would have legitemised the action and meant a far greater support for it, and made the rebuilding of the country easier (and cheaper for the US!). It may also have prevented the increased hatred of the US in some sections of the arab population - with it's knock-on effect on current and future terrorisism..
10 Jan 04
I'm not so interested in the blame and hate eruptions.
As I said in my first post I doubt it if any country with the power of the US would do it better. The rather urgent question for me is how you can deal with a situation where one country can overpower the rest of the world. How can you arrive at decisions that reflect the thoughts and feelings of the majority of the world population? And how can a majority respect the wishes of minorities? Or do we think that our welfare and wellbeing van be best guaranteed with one super power that dictates war and peace? I think this is an important issue for people in and outside the US.
Maybe I shouldn't have brought that up in a thread that seems to aim for controversies.
In answer to the bashing of the French here a link to the speech by Dominique de Villepin at the U.N.Security Council
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/articletxt.gb.asp?ART=32390
Fjord
10 Jan 04
1 edit
Two quotes from the Villepin speech:
"Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time"
and
"France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, ....."
This was the stance of the French government UNTIL they decided that they would NEVER support a resolution stating an ultimatum and the use of military force. That gave Saddam the insurance that he had nothing to fear and therefore he could go on disobeying the international community.
12 Jan 04
1 edit
Originally posted by Redmike"Imperialist,colonialist adventures" would imply that we want land and control over people. Lets revisit the issue in ten years. I'll bet the US is nowhere near Iraq at that time. Any bets? We have conquored several nations/governments since Perry sailed into Japan. We have no interest in staying. Never have. Never will.
The difference is that the US is currently embarking on a series of imperialist, colonialist adventures. Much more so than any other nation on the planet. [/b]
If we ever show a sign of wanting to "French" a nation... ie, stay and bleed it forever... I will personally take up arms against the dumbies in charge... not matter who they are. And I am quite proud that the constitution that millions have died for... to support... give me that right.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by chancremechanici believe that the essence of democracy is that governments are up for critique. If someone critisizes a government then their point should be listened to.
Precisely my point. Don't throw stones unless you are ready for a few broken windows yourself. I have no problem with someone criticizing my gov't; I do it all the time. But if you do criticize my gov't and ESPECIALLY my country, be prepared to have your own analyzed and critiqued....cheers
For you to make a separate critique is of course also fine by me. But that in no way affects the original, unless you address the points.
Offering to not expose another's badness in exchange for them not exposing your badness is not democracy, it is corruption.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by flexmoreSo what great country do you represent Flexless? Silly on an internet site to not post it or state it.
i believe that the essence of democracy is that governments are up for critique. If someone critisizes a government then their point should be listened to.
For you to make a separate critique is of course also fine by me. But that in no way affects the original, unless you address the points.
Offering to not expose another's badness in exchange for them not exposing your badness is not democracy, it is corruption.
The essence of democracy is silliness. The assumption is that the value of a murderer and thief is the value of a dedicated and devoted mother.
All governments are silly by nature. They are all just gangs with enforcers. The question then becomes... "Which ones invite bullies to start wars by being cowards?" and "Which ones kill silly killers to make life better for the innocent?"
Where you from, Flexless?
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI think flexmore is from Australia, as hinted by the 'Chesstralia' bit. Am I wrong?
So what great country do you represent Flexless? Silly on an internet site to not post it or state it.
The essence of democracy is silliness. The assumption is that the value of a murderer and thief is the value of a dedicated and devoted mother.
All governments are silly by nature. They are all just gangs with enforcers. The question then becomes ...[text shortened]... nes kill silly killers to make life better for the innocent?"
Where you from, Flexless?
12 Jan 04
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenHow would one know? I don't think it safe to ever assume you in the wrong RC. One might hear a phrase like 'HinterChessland' and not know for sure either. One might even hear "oberchesston" and never guess at the correct county.
I think flexmore is from Australia, as hinted by the 'Chesstralia' bit. Am I wrong?
😛😀
by the way RC... what do you think of my assertion? Can you defend "pure" democracy? "One Vote for One Man"... and yes... it was man and he had to have property and the right parents and own slaves and... you get the picture.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyVery tough question. At first thought, what if the thief and murderer is more knowledgeable about how to run a society than the devoted mother? Isn't his input more valuable, even if he's not very nice? (A lot of people who make a living running society are thieves and murderers.)
How would one know? I don't think it safe to ever assume you in the wrong RC. One might hear a phrase like 'HinterChessland' and not know for sure either. One might even hear "oberchesston" and never guess at the correct county.
😛😀
by the way RC... what do you think of my assertion? Can you defend "pure" democracy? "One Vote for One Man ...[text shortened]... man and he had to have property and the right parents and own slaves and... you get the picture.
On the other hand, voting is not about how to run society optimally. Democracy doesn't claim to optimize efficiency of the group. It is designed to give voice to each individual. Sometimes this leads to good government (Solon's 'democracy' was apparently well-run, but Sparta was also an extremely efficient society on a day-to-day basis), sometimes it doesn't. So I don't know at the moment.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by royalchickenThe devoted mother can seek help. the depraved murderer can only rely on tyranny. To ask forgiveness or assistance when you have killed an innocent can only bring about your undoing, in a just society. In an un-just society... all bets are off. You might be right. If "more knowledgeable about how to run a society" doesn't include "society" ..., ie, "that which is refined and acceptable among a general gathering of rational beings" then yes... you are right. That is "right by might". No. His input is vile. Nothing good can come from that which is vile. Unless you are a professor at a major institution. Then you think so... because you are basically resigned to the least common good. That which signs your pay check.
Very tough question. At first thought, what if the thief and murderer is more knowledgeable about how to run a society than the devoted mother? Isn't his input more valuable, even if he's not very nice? (A lot of people who make a living running society are thieves and murderers.)
On the other hand, voting is not about how to run society optima ...[text shortened]... icient society on a day-to-day basis), sometimes it doesn't. So I don't know at the moment.
Can you name a person "running society" who is a "thief and murderer"?
Other than Johnson and the Clintons?
😀
Voting should not be about "one person, one vote" either. If this is held to be true then indeed you must be able to add human qualities and assign values. I ask again... "How many murderous villains equal one virtuous mother of five"? She in voting the future of her five... they in voting to enable themselves the right to murder and plunder her?
What is democracy? Silly. That is what. Much better that we have a representative Republic.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWait. Are you suggesting that just because Hypotheical Hal killed someone, his input, no matter how rational, is invalid?
The devoted mother can seek help. the depraved murderer can only rely on tyranny. To ask forgiveness or assistance when you have killed an innocent can only bring about your undoing, in a just society. In an un-just society... all bets are off. You might be right. If "more knowledgeable about how to run a society" doesn't include "society" ..., ie, ...[text shortened]...
What is democracy? Silly. That is what. Much better that we have a representative Republic.
You've already seen the 'voting coefficient' idea, right?
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe trouble with many of your posts, SVW, is a heavy reliance on false dichotomies. Your last post is a good example:
So what great country do you represent Flexless? Silly on an internet site to not post it or state it.
The essence of democracy is silliness. The assumption is that the value of a murderer and thief is the value of a dedicated and devoted mother.
All governments are silly by nature. They are all just gangs with enforcers. The question then becomes ...[text shortened]... nes kill silly killers to make life better for the innocent?"
Where you from, Flexless?
All governments are silly by nature. They are all just gangs with enforcers. The question then becomes... "Which ones invite bullies to start wars by being cowards?" and "Which ones kill silly killers to make life better for the innocent?"
You postulate "X" which can only lead to "A" or "B" with A and B being diametrically opposed. You then claim either A or B for yourself and try to pigeonhole your opponent into the opposite corner. This is a logical fallacy. X often leads not only to A and B, but C, D, and E, etc., as well. If your oppenent does in fact try to claim C or D as their position, you ignore them completely and continue to treat them as either A or B.
This may seem like nothing more than a lot of abstractions, but I will try to illustrate the point with a concrete example:
In your recent exchange with Bbarr concerning the invasion of Iraq, you have claimed (in effect) that Saddam Hussein was evil and needed to be removed from power (this equals X in the formula above). Therefore everyone who opposed Saddam should have supported the invasion (we'll call this A). Ipso facto, everyone who opposed the war was an ally and supporter of Saddam (we'll call this B). You go on to conclude that because Bbarr opposed the war that he was a supporter and ally of Hussein.
That is a false dichotomy. As we saw, Bbarr went on to claim that he opposed Hussein, but at the same time opposed the war (which we'll call C). You have consistently ignored Bbarr's claim of C (or are incapable of conceptualizing it) and went right back to claiming "if not A, then B". But the fact remains that C was a viable alternative. It was possible to oppose Hussein AND oppose the war simultaneously.
You seem to be chronically incapable of conceptualizing solutions to problems except in terms of black or white. There doesn't seem to be any gray middle ground in your world.
I'm not really sure why I went to the trouble of typing all this out as you'll probably dismiss it out of hand. But now that it's done, I feel compelled to post it. So make of it what you will.
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by royalchickenWhat the hell is a hypo Hal? No ain't heard of it/he/she/it. And yes... those who would even concider the advise of a killer are perverted. They should be shunned. Whether "Hal" has anything to say is not a matter for discussion. The very act of including "him" in any discussion lowers that discussion to his "least human" standard. So... Don't do it. We are all adults here, right? Lets only concider points of view of people who are not killers. Will we miss any point of view? No. We all "Can" kill. That is only being human. To actually "Kill" adds nothing to the validity of "humanness". If it does... please tell me what it is.
Wait. Are you suggesting that just because Hypotheical Hal killed someone, his input, no matter how rational, is invalid?
You've already seen the 'voting coefficient' idea, right?
12 Jan 04
Originally posted by rwingettOk. Geez! You are my hero. You speak so eloquently! Gosh. Let me stand and admire you...
The trouble with many of your posts, SVW, is a heavy reliance on false dichotomies. Your last post is a good example:
All governments are silly by nature. They are all just gangs with enforcers. The question then becomes... "Which ones invite bullies to start wars by being cowards?" and "Which ones kill silly killers to make life better for the innoc ...[text shortened]... out of hand. But now that it's done, I feel compelled to post it. So make of it what you will.
Or What a fool. Still just a worn our Commie?
Do you really think I give a rats' ass as to what you think?
Not. X... Y... Z... then A... then B... back to Z... but only of X...
Cripes! I don't have any "oppenents" that I know of. You? don't make me laugh. By the way... I treat you as a worn out commie because that is what you are.
A... B... What do I care? I don't. It is only my feelings which should be painfully obvious mean nothing to me, and even less to those who read this. You give all the "A through E" crap without your interpretation of what they are... or impirically... indeed, what "they" are. You and your kind are the best evidence there is that society is a total failure.
So?
I hate you. You hate me. Mr. Rogers is a worn out commie. He he.