So now I will explain you something, [censored]

[Arnfinn Madsen]

You expressed in the [censored]-ology thread that you felt that some/many/all liberals do not fully respect democracy and that you feared this (you did not elaborate if the fair was strong or weak).

Many non-US citizens view the UN as some sort of world parliament thus the US mocking of UN followed by the Iraqi-war was seen as a disrespect of international law. They saw US as a minority using violence to get things it way. This is the source of much of the fear and anger. Your fears are becoming real for many citizens in this world.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
You expressed in the [censored]-ology thread that you felt that some/many/all liberals do not fully respect democracy and that you feared this (you did not elaborate if the fair was strong or weak).

Many non-US citizens view the UN as some sort of world parliament thus the US mocking of UN followed by the Iraqi-war was seen as a disrespect of international law. They saw US as a minority using violence to get things it way. This is the source of much of the fear and anger. Your fears are becoming real for many citizens in this world.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is fine for them to believe that. However we in US believe in our own right of determination and do not recognize the authority of a foriegn body like the UN in determining issues like our national security.

the only question for the world is what are you prepared to do about it?

also as a side note the UN is comprised of many nations who in no way respect the will or freedom of their own people. thus I think it is quite logical for the US citizens to place little weight in the decisions of that body.

conversly if the UN was comprised of only those nations under some form of representative goverment. it's decisions would carry much more weight in determining how I felt about certain issues like going to war.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I know your view is very common in the US, just wanted to give you an insight into why you are viewed as undemocratic.

What got me thinking of the similarities, was a story the French foreign minister told about the running-up to the French veto in the UN security council. He had spoken to all the members of the security council and knew there was a majority against the US proposal.

He then said that France thus did not need to veto but some of the other countries expressed fear upon how the US would punish them if they voted no and pledged France to veto to relieve them of that burden. Finally the French president decided to announce his veto thus pushing US to retreat the proposal and avoiding a vote, saving the small countries from US retaliation.

Among all citizens who acknowledges UN as the authority on international law and human rights such stories are scary as it would be to you if you knew Liberals used undemocratic methods to get things their way.

[[censored]]

also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[[censored]]

I guess what I am saying is that international law does not exist as currently there is no desire amongst those who subscribe to it to see it enforced wholly and fully.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[/ QUOTE ]

if a law cannot be enforced it cannot very well be law now can it?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I am saying is that international law does not exist as currently there is no desire amongst those who subscribe to it to see it enforced wholly and fully.

[/ QUOTE ]

The desire is big among many, they lack the ability.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[/ QUOTE ]

if a law cannot be enforced it cannot very well be law now can it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not de facto law anymore, thus easeing the decision process for other countries considering to violate it.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be logical to argue that international exists for some countries but not all. that is the less powerful nations are required to follow international law but the more powerfurl nations are not.

this may not be something many like but it is hard to argue that is not the reality.

from this you can clearly see the benefits a society recieves from deciding to fund a strong military power.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I am saying is that international law does not exist as currently there is no desire amongst those who subscribe to it to see it enforced wholly and fully.

[/ QUOTE ]

The desire is big among many, they lack the ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong certainly if the rest of the world decided to spend its resources to allow them to impose international law on the US they could so. they simply have determined that the cost is too high, thus they do not have the desire.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be logical to argue that international exists for some countries but not all. that is the less powerful nations are required to follow international law but the more powerfurl nations are not.

this may not be something many like but it is hard to argue that is not the reality.

from this you can clearly see the benefits a society recieves from deciding to fund a strong military power.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is also what has resulted from the Iraq war. Many nations are back on the track of trying to build a stronger military to increase their "number of votes" in the world parliament. US is not certain to stay ahead in that game mid- & longterm so the Iraq war might backfire.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[/ QUOTE ]

if a law cannot be enforced it cannot very well be law now can it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not de facto law anymore, thus easeing the decision process for other countries considering to violate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically all the US did was prove that the law did not exist.

what does exist is a law which basically says the US and a few of out Allies will determine the laws by which nations conduct their foriegn policy.

and now we come to the problem. under [censored]-ology the US in conducting foreign policy in a just manner should when interacting with other countries take into account the will of all the people being affected.


thus the question is whether the US acted in accordance with international law as clearly no such exists, only a desire to have a law but the US may have acted unjustly. However that is not an easy thing to determine.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be logical to argue that international exists for some countries but not all. that is the less powerful nations are required to follow international law but the more powerfurl nations are not.

this may not be something many like but it is hard to argue that is not the reality.

from this you can clearly see the benefits a society recieves from deciding to fund a strong military power.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is also what has resulted from the Iraq war. Many nations are back on the track of trying to build a stronger military to increase their "number of votes" in the world parliament. US is not certain to stay ahead in that game mid- & longterm so the Iraq war might backfire.

[/ QUOTE ]

right remember I did not say that a society based on respecting the will of the people would not make decisions which would in hindsight be viewed as a mistake. Infact I said that it is certain they would.

The Iraq war may at some point be viewed as one of these decisions.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/military/military_expenditures_dollar_figure_2004_0.html)

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/military/military_expenditures_dollar_figure_2004_0.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/military/military_expenditures_dollar_figure_2004_0.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif, adjustments in this can't be made overnight. Thus I speak of mid- and longterm.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/military/military_expenditures_dollar_figure_2004_0.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif, adjustments in this can't be made overnight. Thus I speak of mid- and longterm.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting. in your opinion then do you see the european nations increasing military spending in the future?

I think the ultimate answer to that question determines how and how strongly the citizens of these nations feel about the government of the US. would you agree/disagree

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/military/military_expenditures_dollar_figure_2004_0.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif, adjustments in this can't be made overnight. Thus I speak of mid- and longterm.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting. in your opinion then do you see the european nations increasing military spending in the future?

I think the ultimate answer to that question determines how and how strongly the citizens of these nations feel about the government of the US. would you agree/disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, more or less. It does not come down to fear of being invaded or such. If European countries feel that the US govenment is in conflict with their interests this will be a factor to increase military spending. However, for cultural reasons I believe the willingness to do so is higher outside Europe (China etc.)

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/military/military_expenditures_dollar_figure_2004_0.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif, adjustments in this can't be made overnight. Thus I speak of mid- and longterm.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting. in your opinion then do you see the european nations increasing military spending in the future?

I think the ultimate answer to that question determines how and how strongly the citizens of these nations feel about the government of the US. would you agree/disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, more or less. It does not come down to fear of being invaded or such. If European countries feel that the US govenment is in conflict with their interests this will be a factor to increase military spending. However, for cultural reasons I believe the willingness to do so is higher outside Europe (China etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it would follow that the more differences a nation's beliefs are with the US the more they should spend on military power.

[lastchance]

Explain to me why people still fear and give credit to ordinary military power in this world when nuclear weapons exist? If you have 15 ICBM's attached with nukes, you can put the fear of god into the US militarily. That would do more damage than thousands of tanks against that particular opponent, and pretty much any country in the world. Rumsfeld was right, standard military right now is useless considering your opponent can destroy your 10 biggest cities in a flash.

What I think is feared even more, because it is more applicable, and because military power doesn't trump it, as long as you have the aforementioned 15 ICBM's is resource and economic power. Saudi Arabia is a country that fills their citizens with radical Islam, but we still don't bully them around due to economic power. Should Europe find itself in a position they disagree strongly with the US on, pulling out that economic card would hurt a lot, as long as you are ready to deal with the consequences.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why people still fear and give credit to ordinary military power in this world when nuclear weapons exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

that's a good question because clearly they do. I think the answer lies somewhere with the concept of mutually assured destruction thus lack of desire to use them. Hence, people believe being subject to say the power of the US is better than being destroyed.

This doesn't always hold true as it is clear that North Korea for example developed their weapons to discourage the US from using its military power against them. So I think it follows that the further apart countries are in their political ideaologies the more likely they are to turn to nuclear weapons. the cold war is good example of this.

It would follow then that in a world of one super power, the most just the US acts the fewer countries will want to have nuclear, except for those countries which act in a greatly unjust manner.

so when n. korea wants nuclear weapons I think a fair question would are they doing so because they fear the US acting in a unjuct manner or is their government unjust enough to fear the just superpower.

this is all based on judgement of course but a good bit of evidence would be to look at other nations we judge as being just to see if they are suddenly wanting to build a nuclear aresenal.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick:

Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/military/military_expenditures_percent_of_gdp_2004_0.html)

[coffeecrazy1]

Well...to say nothing of the other things he might be, one thing Kim Jong-Il is not is stupid. He knows that the last guy the United States starting talking to in the manner he's being talked to is now being photographed in his underwear, complaining that he doesn't like Froot Loops.

I'm not saying that we are so great for this, or that he's evil, or anything...I'm just saying that Kim Jong-Il is not backing down from international pressure...in fact, he seems to have no problems with ramping up the concern around the world.

And one thing more about nuclear weapons: the nukes that everyone has now are much stronger than those of WWII, obviously. The problem with nuclear warfare is that now, it quickly becomes a war of attrition. Once the first one is dropped, we have passed the point of no return. That's why using them is such a deadly game.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
And one thing more about nuclear weapons: the nukes that everyone has now are much stronger than those of WWII, obviously. The problem with nuclear warfare is that now, it quickly becomes a war of attrition. Once the first one is dropped, we have passed the point of no return. That's why using them is such a deadly game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which sounds like a good reason to have the lot of them dismantled, as no good can come from having them, unless you percieve 'mutually assured destruction' as a possible benefit.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick:

Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004


[/ QUOTE ]

If you like sick according to the same source, the USA spends 17.6 times the GDP of North Korea on the military each year, and leaves small countries like this no other option but to try to design the weapons which will be capable of killing people in their millions and will be fired one day with 100% certainty. The choices are stark, because of the attitudes expressed by [censored] in this thread, who seems to think because you are bigger and stronger you can act like an arsehole with impunity, this is ignorant and far from true.

Mack

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick:

Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/military/military_expenditures_percent_of_gdp_2004_0.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for posting this list as well, because after I read your earlier post I was going to go look for it. The US may spend the most when it comes to pure dollar amount on our military, but it is ranked 22nd in % of GDP. Keep in mind that these figures are also probably inflated somewhat because of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The US would still be ranked above the rest of Europe, but a significant statistic none-the-less.

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]

If you like sick according to the same source, the USA spends 17.6 times the GDP of North Korea on the military each year

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand this thinking. The population of the United States (295 million) is at least 13x the population of North Korea (22 million). I really don't see what the problem is if your population is that much larger to spend more on your military to make sure that your citizens can be defended should it come to that.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand this thinking. The population of the United States (295 million) is at least 13x the population of North Korea (22 million). I really don't see what the problem is if your population is that much larger to spend more on your military to make sure that your citizens can be defended should it come to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its for attacking not defending, the US hasn't been attacked in 60 years has it?

Mack

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]


Its for attacking not defending, the US hasn't been attacked in 60 years has it?

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Try 3.5 Years. (http://www.september11news.com/)

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Its for attacking not defending, the US hasn't been attacked in 60 years has it?

Mack


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Try 3.5 Years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant an act of war not terrorism.

Mack

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]


I meant an act of war not terrorism.



[/ QUOTE ]

I consider them the same. The type of enemy is just different. And you need your military to be actively prepared to defend and attack when called upon.

I'm just saying that I don't really have a problem with the US government spending what it does on it's Military. On a similiar note, would I like to see the United States spend more on foreign aid and perhaps less on (let's say...just one example of probably thousands) airport screeners. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062903063.html) You bet I would.

[mackthefork]

The US record on international aid is one thing I can't think of anything negative to say about.

Mack

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with nuclear warfare is that now, it quickly becomes a war of attrition. Once the first one is dropped, we have passed the point of no return. That's why using them is such a deadly game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it seem like once a country develops a big bomb they can use it at will against anyone. Your thinking is wrong, their are only six nations in the world that have ballistic missile technology which is needed to send missiles long range into other countries. North Korea is not one of them

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with nuclear warfare is that now, it quickly becomes a war of attrition. Once the first one is dropped, we have passed the point of no return. That's why using them is such a deadly game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it seem like once a country develops a big bomb they can use it at will against anyone. Your thinking is wrong, their are only six nations in the world that have ballistic missile technology which is needed to send missiles long range into other countries. North Korea is not one of them

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't my point at all. I was not speaking to the motivation or ability of people to drop the bomb. What I was speaking to was the problem of nuclear warfare...in that, a nuclear device is such a catastrophic weapon, it eliminates any measure of proportional response or scale...the only suitable recourse is to retaliate with another nuclear bomb.

And, as to your statement about launch capabilities...are you high-level military personnel? Are you a spy? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but oftentimes, people and countries are farther ahead in development than we, the general public, think we are. As a very bad example, the Second Death Star didn't look operational, either.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]

And this is also what has resulted from the Iraq war. Many nations are back on the track of trying to build a stronger military to increase their "number of votes" in the world parliament.

[/ QUOTE ]

"back on the track"? with maybe the exception of Russia (because of economic reasons) which countries have significantly decreased there military spending in the recently hmmmm… 10 to 20 years. And directly because of the events in Iraq which of these countries have spent more on military.

The only countries that may have spent more are those that actually sent troops to help all the allied forces in the middle east.



[ QUOTE ]

US is not certain to stay ahead in that game mid- & longterm so the Iraq war might backfire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity were did you come up with this?

I think your view or perspective on US military authority and its uses are sort or skewed. Taking military actions to protect the national security of a nation is not necessarily a bad think. I doubt few countries if not any are going to significantly alter their military objectives directly because of the actions taken by the allied forces in Iraq.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]

That wasn't my point at all. I was not speaking to the motivation or ability of people to drop the bomb. What I was speaking to was the problem of nuclear warfare...in that, a nuclear device is such a catastrophic weapon, it eliminates any measure of proportional response or scale...the only suitable recourse is to retaliate with another nuclear bomb.


[/ QUOTE ]

noted

[ QUOTE ]

And, as to your statement about launch capabilities...are you high-level military personnel? Are you a spy?


[/ QUOTE ]

no, no, and yes i am a spy

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but oftentimes, people and countries are farther ahead in development than we, the general public, think we are. As a very bad example, the Second Death Star didn't look operational, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes very bad example... bud i still laughed

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick:

Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004


[/ QUOTE ]
The choices are stark, because of the attitudes expressed by [censored] in this thread, who seems to think because you are bigger and stronger you can act like an arsehole with impunity, this is ignorant and far from true.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly this is true. Is the US subject to any form of international law that it does wish to be subject to? the anwser is no and therefoe currently the US can act with impunity when it wants to.

You may not like this, but I don't see how you are argueing that it is not the reality.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is true. Is the US subject to any form of international law that it does wish to be subject to? the anwser is no and therefoe currently the US can act with impunity when it wants to.

You may not like this, but I don't see how you are argueing that it is not the reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

About international law you are right, but the citizens of the countries that act like this will always ultimately suffer for the stupidity of their governments actions, and their own apathetic disregard for the lives of strangers in foreign lands.

We live in a democratic societies, we the people are ultimately responsible for holding our own governments to account. Thats all I was saying.

Now you are probably going to read into this that I am saying we deserve terror, and that is far from true basically because most people feel apathy for the suffering of others, those people deserve nothing but freedom and happiness, but they still have to hold the government to account, its their most important duty.

Regards Mack

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


Now you are probably going to read into this that I am saying we deserve terror



[/ QUOTE ]

no not at all.

[[censored]]

What I am saying is that one basis to judege whether or not the US is acting justly when it comes to foriegn policy and specificaly military aggression to gauge the consequenting decisions of the those nations we already believe to be just.

thus I believe it is reasonable to assume that if these just nations believed the US was likely to act in a unjust manner in regards to military force they would make actual decisions, spend resources and create partnerships to protect themselve from the US.

The US and European responce to the USSR after world war 2 would be one example from history.

When I look around the world I currently do not see the nations I believe to be just reacting in this way. I only see nations who I believe to be unjust reacting as I described. Thus it would not be rational to believe A) the US acted unjustly in regards to Iraq or that B)that those nations I believe are just feel strongly that the US action in Iraq was unjust.

Rather is seems more likely the action was either judged as just or not unjustly enough warrant significant concern.

The above takes no position on whether or not action in Iraq will be later viewed as a mistake. It quite possibly could.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
and that is far from true basically because most people feel apathy for the suffering of others,

[/ QUOTE ]

when I said this I of course meant empathy, apologies.

Mack

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and that is far from true basically because most people feel apathy for the suffering of others,

[/ QUOTE ]

when I said this I of course meant empathy, apologies.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't catch that. that is funny.

[Felix_Nietsche]

.......No Repect.


The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.
************************************************** **
There was an armistice signed after the first Gulf war. Iraq promised to abide by the terms of the armistice. They did NOT on SEVERAL occasions. They even fired upon coalition aircraft. Hussein even tried to assassinate Bush41 on his visit to Kuwait. Because of the actions of Saddam Hussein and his violations of the armistice, the USA was free to attack Iraq at any point they chose to (clinton did several times). But Bush43 chose to go thru the UN. This was respect the UN did not deserve. What he encountered was a corrupt UN taking bribes from Saddam Hussein and ignoring their own resolutions. I would love to see the USA leave the UN and kick them out of New York...

Take North Korea.
Are you aware that the USA is still legally at war with North Korea? North Korea would not sign a peace treaty. There is only a cease fire. When I was in the Army is was common knowledge that fire fights occured between US soldiers and North Korean soldiers. North Korea is also a mass counterfeiter of US dollars. The equipment to make money is made by a Swiss firm and North Korea purchased this equipment and is engaged in mass counterfeiting of US money. To me, this alone is grounds for war.

Right now the USA is involved in worthless negoiations with North Korea. Bush43 thinks the Chinese will help to keep North Korea from going nuclear but he is wrong. The policy of China is to surplant the USA influence in that region and they see North Korea as a way to tie up the USA. Don't be surprise if the USA attacks North Korea without the UN's 'permission'. We do not need it. The USA is a sovereign nation subject to ONLY its laws.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Many nations are back on the track of trying to build a stronger military to increase their "number of votes" in the world parliament. US is not certain to stay ahead in that game mid- & longterm so the Iraq war might backfire.
************************************************** ***
A strong economy is the foundation for having a strong military. This has been truth for every war since the beginning of man-kind. Western-Europe has adopted a social welfare state economy that is anti-business (high taxes puntive laws) with high overhead due to the social programs. Europe can't support a strong military and their social programs at the same time.

I have my doubts they can continue to fund their social programs. It is WISHFUL thinking to believe Europe can build a strong military.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Take North Korea.
Are you aware that the USA is still legally at war with North Korea? North Korea would not sign a peace treaty. There is only a cease fire. When I was in the Army is was common knowledge that fire fights occured between US soldiers and North Korean soldiers. North Korea is also a mass counterfeiter of US dollars. The equipment to make money is made by a Swiss firm and North Korea purchased this equipment and is engaged in mass counterfeiting of US money. To me, this alone is grounds for war.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that explains how they spend 23% of GDP on the military, the cheeky fuckers are doing it with ripped off notes, that really is taking the piss.

Mack

[BadgerAle]

If theres any international bribing its by the US rather than the UN, how do you think they got all those small countries to give their support (though not contribute any cash or troops obviously) to the Iraq war? I suppose thats whats called diplomacy but don't tell me that the US has any moral highground here. On another level I suppose its a co-incidence that an oil company-bankrolled leader has the idea of invading a unthreatening country full of oil and starts giving out contracts? The US is a Corrupt Den of Snakes and They Deserve......

[wh1t3bread]

You make no sense. So the government gave out a contract to Haliburton (who happened to be personaly tied to the Vice President). Big freakin deal!!! This isnt a new concept. Playing favorites is a way of human life.

If the Iraqi people had to pay for Haliburton's contractors or if the US used Iraqi oil to pay for Haliburton's contract then you have a point.

But that is most definitely not the case. Part of my paycheck goes to pay for Haliburton's contract and that most definitely is the case.

[BadgerAle]

[ QUOTE ]
You make no sense. So the government gave out a contract to Haliburton (who happened to be personaly tied to the Vice President). Big freakin deal!!! This isnt a new concept. Playing favorites is a way of human life.

If the Iraqi people had to pay for Haliburton's contractors or if the US used Iraqi oil to pay for Haliburton's contract then you have a point.

But that is most definitely not the case. Part of my paycheck goes to pay for Haliburton's contract and that most definitely is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The significance is that the war will generate a lot of money for an industry which has bankrolled the president. This is a conflict of intrests on gargantuan scale. Most of what you said as a counter is completly irrelavent.

"Playing favorites is a way of human life. " what? you're not so self rightous when it comes to the Bush goverment?

[MMMMMM]

The U.N. is chock-filled with corrupt and brutal regimes, murderers, those who rule by pure thuggery, etc.

You view your own government or parliament as an elected group of largely responsible, decent leaders and officials. The same cannot be said for a great many member states of the U.N.

Imagine for a moment that your own government were filled instead with assorted murderers, pirates, rapists and other villains. Would you then view its stamp of approval as conferring or denying legitimacy? Why then should decent democratic countries--such as the U.S., Norway, Sweden, England, Australia or Japan--have to consider the votes of despotic regimes as somehow conferring legitimacy or not?

Better that all non-Democratic nations should be kicked out of the U.N., or, alternatively, that free nations should leave the U.N. and form their own body. Then your point might carry more weight.

I don't think the U.S. or any other free country should have to consider the opinions of thuggish, totalitarian, massively human rights violating countries, when deciding what is right or wrong. Nor do I think such regimes should have any say in a global body meant to protect human rights, when they are the most egeregious violators of human rights on the planet.

Certain countries in the U.N., and the opinions of those countries, are deserving of respect. However the same cannot be said for many other regimes (or for the opinions of those regimes). So: when the time comes that the U.N. itself is more representative of the rights it purports to strive to uphold, then its own consensus views will be more worthy of respect.

As for European views of pacifism and diplomacy: that's all great until you face a determined and aggressive foe.

Europe has long slumbered, so to speak, and even now would prefer not to fully acknowledge the ultimate force of the surging menace which is building to confront it.

Sometimes it is better to take the fight to the enemy before he fully arms to take the fight to you. In this case the enemy was Saddam Hussein; and also, radical Islam, and those who support it, and support terrorism, and those who would wish to destroy the West. These enemies are/were implacable and continually trying to arm and seek out new ways to inflict damage. Trying merely to defuse the situation will not provide a long-term solution, and playing only defense will not work either due to the enormous assymetrical advantage the attackers possess. It would also be folly to require the approval of despotic regimes (with diametrically opposed interests to our own) before taking action. Hence well-considered pre-emption is a good strategy.

In the case of Iraq, pre-emption may have come a bit too soon. It is probably better to be a bit early than to be too late, however.

At any rate even if you disagree with the attack on Iraq or the idea of pre-emption, it is folly to require the approval of thuggish states, despots and dictators, before taking reasoned action.

Europe is sleepy enough to not fully realize the growing dangers threatening us all. As radical Islam builds in Europe, it will eventually become apparent to even the most dogmatic multiculturalist.

[ACPlayer]

So, you are upset about the "thuggery" of some states in their internal politics. THere are others who consider the Americans as thugs in their externa policies. Thuggery is relative, to me internal thuggery (until it effects me) of others is not my immediate problem. . External thuggery on the other hand leads to great instability and impedes progress of all parties.

Isolating and not providing forums for discussions with states that you consider thugs is not the way to move them into the "free" world. Isolated thug countries tend to act like North Korea. Engaged thug countries tend to act like China -- at least when it comes to their relations with us (which is what I care about the most).

Dismantling the UN and getting a forum of like minded people is hardly a solution to the improving the living conditions of people around the world. It is yet another feel good idea espoused by those unwilling to do the hard work of making relationships work.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you are upset about the "thuggery" of some states in their internal politics. THere are others who consider the Americans as thugs in their externa policies. Thuggery is relative, to me internal thuggery (until it effects me) of others is not my immediate problem. . External thuggery on the other hand leads to great instability and impedes progress of all parties.

Isolating and not providing forums for discussions with states that you consider thugs is not the way to move them into the "free" world. Isolated thug countries tend to act like North Korea. Engaged thug countries tend to act like China -- at least when it comes to their relations with us (which is what I care about the most).


[/ QUOTE ]


There internal politics are not based on respecting and adhering to the will of their people. Therefore they are by (my) definition unjust and therefore inferior to the just society.

How many democracies within the UN supported the war in Iraq and how many did not? That is far more important that looking the UN as a whole.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
There internal politics are not based on respecting and adhering to the will of their people. Therefore they are by (my) definition unjust and therefore inferior to the just society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? What is your point in this context? We should exclude them from the UN and end all relations with the people? I see it worked really well in Cuba.

Or perhaps we should go around invading all these thug countries.

My point is they exist. We cannot easily change that (imppsing has costs!). We can either go the route we have taken with China or Saudi or Kazakhstan or Pakistan(which are all thug countries we kiss on both cheeks) and establish a symbiotic relationship and work within that to spread the ideas of democracy -- or -- we can call them members of axis of evil, refuse to do business with them and play a game of brinkmanship that ends in a pointless invasion and deaths of innocents (see Iraq, N. Korea, Cuba).

Come on, saying they are thugs that mistreat their people and beating our chests or refusing to do business hurts the very people you want to "rescue" the most of all. The thugs will continue to thug away.


[ QUOTE ]
How many democracies within the UN supported the war in Iraq and how many did not? That is far more important that looking the UN as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know the numbers, though I guess fewer supported us than supported us in Iraq. But, frankly this is irrelevant.

[[censored]]

Yes they should be exluded in terms of castings opinions on the actions of other countries. They should be ignored completely because there governments do not speak for there people, thus they are not legitimate. We should engage them for what they are illigitimate governments that do not represent the actual people who live within the country. Basically they should be dealt by legitimate governments on a as needed basis. However they should their opinions in matters like the war in iraq should never be given any weight because they do not speak for anyone.

Whether other legitimate governments supported or did not support the international action of country is very relevant in determining whether that country acted justly in it's external actions.

I can't really see how anyone could disagree.

[ACPlayer]

Sorry, charlie -- I disagree.

I think our way of working with China is just fine. They thug away inside their border, we protest from time to time talk tough. Their people get to build useless (and useful) items for us to consume, get jobs, start to travel around the country. We listen to them politely in world forums, invite them to G-8 meetings, they maintain their self interest and we maintain ours.

Over time China is loosening up and getting freer. All good.

Contrast that with the idiotic and brutal sanction on Iraq. We isolated Saddam (who along with his hench moen flourished) while Iraqi infrastructure suffered, people got killed, the people were starved and isolated and we ended up in this idiotic war.

The UN should have ended the Sanctions and Clinton should have invited Saddam to the White House for tea and crumpets. We would have been safer and coould have had a relationship with Saddam like we have with the House of Saud.

You dont make a difference to a repressed society by ignoring it or by oppressing it in turn.

[[censored]]

to be clear my comments dealt more with premise of whether we should give weight to the opinions of illegitimate governments when judging the justness of the actions of legitimate governments such as the war in Iraq. I believe absolutely we should not.

I don't have any opinions of the tatics used to deal with illegitmate governments, just that we should use the tatics that bring us the highest possible satisfaction or utility. Sometimes this is diplomacy, sometimes this is war, sometimes this is exclusion.

[ACPlayer]

OK.

So, specifically on the war in Iraq.

I dont recall that the thugs put up much of a fight against our policy. I thought it was the democracies that led the way in that fight.

Of course it is suddenly fashionable in some circles (mostly full of jerkers /images/graemlins/grin.gif) to consider France and Germany as run by despots who ignore the will and opinions of their people. Are you one of them?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
OK.

So, specifically on the war in Iraq.

I dont recall that the thugs put up much of a fight against our policy. I thought it was the democracies that led the way in that fight.

Of course it is suddenly fashionable in some circles (mostly full of jerkers /images/graemlins/grin.gif) to consider France and Germany as run by despots who ignore the will and opinions of their people. Are you one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

France and Germany have elected governments, as long as those governments strive to represent their people, they are legitimate. Having a disagreement on policy does change that fact that they are just societies. It is up to their own people to decide if they corrupt.

As for your first question this is why I asked the question what democracies oppossed the war compared to those that did not. I don't know the answer but it starts with the initial coalition and goes from there.

[ACPlayer]

You argue we should give more weight to just states and not to the unjust states.

In fact in the Iraq case we gave weight to those who lined up and said yes and no weight to those who opposed us. We did not care whether they were just or unjust states, freely given or bought off with monetary largesse. If they said yes, they were enlightened and if they said no we simply shut our ears to those voices.

So, this talk about UN being full of despotic rulers and human right oppressors is all baloney.

The lunacy in world affairs starts in Washington. Read Chomsky for further enlightenment.

[lehighguy]

I haven't read the post up to this point, but I can gurantee Chomsky is not giving anyone any enlightenment.

[ACPlayer]

Your opinion and you are entitled.


How many of his books have you read? Just curious.

[MoreWineII]

[ QUOTE ]
You expressed in the [censored]-ology thread that you felt that some/many/all liberals do not fully respect democracy

[/ QUOTE ]

What does democracy have to do with the US?

[coffeecrazy1]

Interesting point. We don't live in a democracy, so, indeed, what does democracy have to do with the US?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting point. We don't live in a democracy, so, indeed, what does democracy have to do with the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically true, but in the previous thread which this one was based on. We had be discussing a democratic government simply as a government who allows the people to decide the laws with any number of types of mechanisms. In the US this happens to be the mechanism of a republic.

Also once again morewin has failed to understand the entire point of thread and thus is reduced to rather silly posts like the one before yours.

[MoreWineII]

Actually, I didn't even read most of the thread. Just that particular phrase in the OP stood out and I felt compelled to comment on it.

And loosen up dude, it's just a discussion. In the grand scheme of things, it means nothing. No need for insults or barbs.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


loosen up dude

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds good.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick:

Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004


[/ QUOTE ]
The choices are stark, because of the attitudes expressed by [censored] in this thread, who seems to think because you are bigger and stronger you can act like an arsehole with impunity, this is ignorant and far from true.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly this is true. Is the US subject to any form of international law that it does wish to be subject to? the anwser is no and therefoe currently the US can act with impunity when it wants to.

You may not like this, but I don't see how you are argueing that it is not the reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

How far do you your national sovereignity go, [censored]? Could the US build a chemical plant in Southern Texas close to Mexico which would only eject the waste into the air when wind blows southwards? I know it is an extreme example, but what I am curious about is if you think a nation has full freedom to act in self-interest when dealing with other nations or does a nation carry a moral responsibility that disallows it to do harm to other nations?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the North Korea-conflict, but watch this list, they spend 22.9% of GDP on military. That's kind of sick:

Military expenditure as % of GDP 2004


[/ QUOTE ]
The choices are stark, because of the attitudes expressed by [censored] in this thread, who seems to think because you are bigger and stronger you can act like an arsehole with impunity, this is ignorant and far from true.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly this is true. Is the US subject to any form of international law that it does wish to be subject to? the anwser is no and therefoe currently the US can act with impunity when it wants to.

You may not like this, but I don't see how you are argueing that it is not the reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

How far do you your national sovereignity go, [censored]? Could the US build a chemical plant in Southern Texas close to Mexico which would only eject the waste into the air when wind blows southwards? I know it is an extreme example, but what I am curious about is if you think a nation has full freedom to act in self-interest when dealing with other nations or does a nation carry a moral responsibility that disallows it to do harm to other nations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could the US? Clearly so. What could possibly stop the US if that is what it wanted to do?

The only question is should the US? And that is a value judgement. I would choose no.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

There was an armistice signed after the first Gulf war. Iraq promised to abide by the terms of the armistice. They did NOT on SEVERAL occasions. They even fired upon coalition aircraft. Hussein even tried to assassinate Bush41 on his visit to Kuwait. Because of the actions of Saddam Hussein and his violations of the armistice, the USA was free to attack Iraq at any point they chose to (clinton did several times). But Bush43 chose to go thru the UN. This was respect the UN did not deserve. What he encountered was a corrupt UN taking bribes from Saddam Hussein and ignoring their own resolutions. I would love to see the USA leave the UN and kick them out of New York...


[/ QUOTE ]
Would you start killing criminals in the US if you thought your government was corrupt?

[ QUOTE ]

Take North Korea.
Are you aware that the USA is still legally at war with North Korea? North Korea would not sign a peace treaty. There is only a cease fire. When I was in the Army is was common knowledge that fire fights occured between US soldiers and North Korean soldiers. North Korea is also a mass counterfeiter of US dollars. The equipment to make money is made by a Swiss firm and North Korea purchased this equipment and is engaged in mass counterfeiting of US money. To me, this alone is grounds for war.


[/ QUOTE ]
North Korea is a different legal issue as you point out because the war never ended.

[ QUOTE ]

Right now the USA is involved in worthless negoiations with North Korea. Bush43 thinks the Chinese will help to keep North Korea from going nuclear but he is wrong. The policy of China is to surplant the USA influence in that region and they see North Korea as a way to tie up the USA. Don't be surprise if the USA attacks North Korea without the UN's 'permission'. We do not need it. The USA is a sovereign nation subject to ONLY its laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

US would never do it without a silent acceptance from China. China would attack South Korea and maybe Taiwan leaving US in a difficult position (remember that the truce was made so that US would not have to deploy more troops into Korea).

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Many nations are back on the track of trying to build a stronger military to increase their "number of votes" in the world parliament. US is not certain to stay ahead in that game mid- & longterm so the Iraq war might backfire.
************************************************** ***
A strong economy is the foundation for having a strong military. This has been truth for every war since the beginning of man-kind. Western-Europe has adopted a social welfare state economy that is anti-business (high taxes puntive laws) with high overhead due to the social programs. Europe can't support a strong military and their social programs at the same time.

I have my doubts they can continue to fund their social programs. It is WISHFUL thinking to believe Europe can build a strong military.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US society is more structured towards a strong military than European societies. Many nations in Europe prioritize helping the poor in society to buying weapons while US is somewhat in a "state of war". Thus it is natural that US military spending will continue to be higher than in Europe.