the UN

[Skye]

Good point, but then that also serves Dr Dalek's point as well. With the advent of the UN and its coveted "sanctions", no one wants to do anything until the usual "flow chart" criteria has been satisfied. And apparently, that's a never ending loop in some cases.

 

The UN almost gives the countries of the world an excuse not to really do anything. A resolution, in their eyes, is doing something.

 

Some issues don't warrant sanctions, but rather immediate action. If the UN approved a bombing campaign of both NK's and Iran's nuclear facilities, we'd already be past that. Sure they'd be pissed about it. Like they're not pissed now? What has restraint really done for us in these situations?

Restraint has maintained the ceasefire that enables South Korea to be a prosperous US ally.

[Dr. Dalek]

if the UN approved a bombing campaign of NK and Iran it would destroy itself as a legitimate international body.

 

Why not bomb the UK, they got nukes what makes them better than Iran

 

or how bout israel they got nukes and I don't think a single person in the mid east thinks they should have them

 

While the western world may not want NK or Iran to have nukes their's no way an international body should value their oppinions over the oppinions of everyone else in the world.

 

UK, Isreal? They have Nukes but like us they have no intention of using them!

Iran and North Korea might just use them!

The UN is hardy a legitamate anything.

 

Moonbat.

[ParanoiA]

Restraint has maintained the ceasefire that enables South Korea to be a prosperous US ally.

 

And now we have a nuclear North Korea. Restraint, ain't impressed me much.

 

If we had already thumped North Korea and left it for South Korea, I would be willing to bet we would have had an even more prosperous US ally, and I'm sure the North Korean civilians would be all impressed with their new lifestyle, like eating...everyday..and due process..etc

[Skye]

Sure, but China doesn't want that to happen, stopped it from happening up to the ceasefire, and would probably be able to stop it from happening now.

[JohnB]

Especially since it mirrors their own feelings and intentions as well. Every country wants to dominate,

Do we? Australia wants to dominate? Nice pair you got there.

If you try to make a nuclear bomb, I'm going to blow up your facilities and materials that you are trying to make it with. Period. If you view that as oppression or not, I don't really care (hence, indirect oppression, as opposed to occupation and slavery) and I'll attempt to still be your friend, but it will be a conditional friendship since I'll never allow you to have nuclear weapons, if you don't like that - tough.

And you can't see why other nations might possibly view you as a threat? Friendship at the point of a gun is no friendship, it is oppression. It is the dream of Empire. Something for you to think on. All Empire fall. The American Empire as you wish it to be will also fall. I sincerely hope you don't manage to take the civilized world down with you.

I'm not interested in fair or just. I'm interesting in preservation of my life. There isn't a single predator on earth who's the least bit concerned about "fairness".

So you see your nation as a predator. Does this mean you see the USA as some sort of dangerous beast ruling the jungle or simply that you don't think your counrtymen capable of civilized behaviour? I hope your founding fathers are proud of you, they had things to say about "Liberty and Justice for all" you know. From the outside, it's sad to see the once great ideals of a nation trampled in the mud, but hey it's your country, your children who will inherit your legacy.

 

I'm not adverse to playing hardball when needed, but attitudes like yours are making you enemies. Oppress people the way you want to and they may not have nukes but they will hit back with any weapon that comes to hand. Haven't you learnt that lesson yet?

 

You can't go to war with the entire world and expect your allies to back you up. We won't. And you can't go to war against us, your own people won't stand for it. (Aside from the fact that you'd get really, really hurt if you tried. )

 

Here's a notion, try treating other people like human beings rather than ignorant savages and you might make more friends, or at least have fewer enemies.

[ParanoiA]

And you can't see why other nations might possibly view you as a threat? Friendship at the point of a gun is no friendship, it is oppression. It is the dream of Empire. Something for you to think on. All Empire fall. The American Empire as you wish it to be will also fall. I sincerely hope you don't manage to take the civilized world down with you.

 

Who said I can't see why they'd view us as a threat? They've always viewed us as a threat, and will always view us as a threat no matter how you dance to please them.

 

Have you been reading anything I've posted? I'm just pointing out the obvious and accepting reality for what it is. It doesn't matter how cushy you want everything to be, it isn't and will never be. What have you seen in nature to suggest such a thing?

 

So you see your nation as a predator. Does this mean you see the USA as some sort of dangerous beast ruling the jungle or simply that you don't think your counrtymen capable of civilized behaviour? I hope your founding fathers are proud of you' date=' they had things to say about "Liberty and Justice for all" you know. From the outside, it's sad to see the once great ideals of a nation trampled in the mud, but hey it's your country, your children who will inherit your legacy.

 

I'm not adverse to playing hardball when needed, but attitudes like yours are making you enemies. Oppress people the way you want to and they may not have nukes but they will hit back with any weapon that comes to hand. Haven't you learnt that lesson yet?

 

You can't go to war with the entire world and expect your allies to back you up. We won't. And you can't go to war against us, your own people won't stand for it. (Aside from the fact that you'd get really, really hurt if you tried. )

 

Here's a notion, try treating other people like human beings rather than ignorant savages and you might make more friends, or at least have fewer enemies.[/quote']

 

I see all nations as a predator, because they are.

 

Look, I'm not advocating being a predator, I'm accepting that we are a predator. There's a difference. You don't have to act on your predatory instincts. However, if you recognize them - due to accepting they are there - then you can make better judgments - like ignoring them for instance.

 

Nuclear weapons are not something to be ignored. I mean, really, consider that a little more will you? Something responsible countries really shouldn't have.

 

When you understand the difference between accepting your role and playing your role, you'll understand why your last post looks ridiculous to me.

[Pangloss]

You know, there's nothing unilateral about the United States' position with regard to North Korea. Some of the misconceptions that are flying around these days are just astounding, and this is only a tiny example. I can't believe somebody actually posted that if the UN were to approve a bombing campaign then it would no longer be a legitimate international body. Do people just not read history books anymore?

 

One of the things that really irks me about our action in Iraq, as well as the REaction of the rest of the world to that event, is the way it's cast a gloomy shadow over every other action (or inaction) that takes place on the entire international diplomatic landscape. Every time a foreign diplomat stubs his or her toe some extremist somewhere screams for a bombing campaign, and some other extremist somewhere else insists that the Americans will begin bombing shortly. Do other nations not have diplomats anymore? Yeesh.

 

It's like watching a reporter on the 6 o'clock news talk about the Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, or describe a solar eclipse as "the only time that the dark side of the moon faces the sun". You just wanna slap somebody silly.

[Sisyphus]

Good point ParanoiA. People always bring that question up. "What makes it ok for the US to have nukes and not other countries?". It's the fact that we don't give the other countries names like Small Satan(Israel) and Great Satan(U.S.). There's no doubt in mind that as soon as Iran gets a nuke, they're going to use it themselves, or give it to someone else that will. As long as it's against The Infidel.

 

No, we call them the "Axis of Evil."

[ParanoiA]

No, we call them the "Axis of Evil."

 

Which is a perfect description...

[JohnB]

ParanoiA, I have been reading, as you have been but I don't think you've got my point.

 

Having powerful enemies is not good, on that we both agree, but what do you advocate doing about powerful friends? If a friend becomes too powerful are they suddenly an enemy?

 

A powerful friend is just as much a danger to US supremacy as a powerful enemy, especially since "friend" can become "enemy" within a very short time. All it takes is a change of outlook or government. That is why I'm saying that comments like yours are making even your friends think twice.

 

I'm a friend of the US, always have been, but what I'm seeing sometimes worries me. It's like some sectors of the US are drunk on power. "We'll do it because we can" is not the attitude one expects from an enlightened Democracy, it's what we expect to hear from some tin pot 3rd World dictator.

 

There's an old saying "If it walks like a duck......" what are you walking like at the moment?

 

Yes the US is the last superpower but with that power goes responsibility. You want to be the world's policeman? (And let's face it, no-one else wants the job. ) Go right ahead. But a policeman works within rules and laws, he doesn't go around like the neighbourhood thug. Which way do you want it to be?

 

Police, or just an international protection racket?

[Sisyphus]

Which is a perfect description...

 

Is it? Let's see. "Axis?" Well, they're not allied. Iraq and Iran were enemies, and North Korea had nothing to do with either one. Alright, "evil?" I'll grant there's quite a bit of evil, there, but it's not exactly the agenda, is it? I mean, evil for evil's sake? They're not cartoon villains, are they? So no, it's not a perfect description. It's a stupid description.

 

Anyway, my point was more to try to avoid double standards. Let me be clear: I think the world is better with the U.S., Britain, etc., having nuclear weapons. I also think the world would be a better place if neither Iran nor North Korea could get their hands on similar weapons. I think we, pragmatically, should do what we can to (euphamistically) "discourage" those programs. But I don't think it has a damn thing to do with fairness. From the perspective of "rights," they have just as much right to a nuclear deterrant as we do. Yes, they call us names, say we're a big threat and an aggressor and it would be better if we don't exist, and that justifiably makes us nervous. But we do exactly the same thing to them. If anything, they're more justified, since they have far more to fear from us in conventional warfare then we do from them, and it is an entirely rational belief that a nuclear deterrant might be the only thing that could prevent invasion and destruction.

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA, I have been reading, as you have been but I don't think you've got my point.

 

 

You have been reading, but not comprehending still I see...

 

I just don't have the energy to repost everything I already said in hopes you might understand me this time. You're still stuck on this idea that somehow if I see us and them as the predators we all are, that somehow that makes me malevolent or drunk with power, being compared to 3rd world dictatorships.

 

Since when does knowledge equal intent? If I acknowledge that I'm more powerful than an ant, that suddenly makes me the oppressor of ants?

 

Like I said before, when you realize the difference between knowing your role and playing your role...

[ParanoiA]

Is it? Let's see. "Axis?" Well, they're not allied. Iraq and Iran were enemies, and North Korea had nothing to do with either one. Alright, "evil?" I'll grant there's quite a bit of evil, there, but it's not exactly the agenda, is it? I mean, evil for evil's sake? They're not cartoon villains, are they? So no, it's not a perfect description. It's a stupid description.

 

Anyway, my point was more to try to avoid double standards. Let me be clear: I think the world is better with the U.S., Britain, etc., having nuclear weapons. I also think the world would be a better place if neither Iran nor North Korea could get their hands on similar weapons. I think we, pragmatically, should do what we can to (euphamistically) "discourage" those programs. But I don't think it has a damn thing to do with fairness. From the perspective of "rights," they have just as much right to a nuclear deterrant as we do. Yes, they call us names, say we're a big threat and an aggressor and it would be better if we don't exist, and that justifiably makes us nervous. But we do exactly the same thing to them. If anything, they're more justified, since they have far more to fear from us in conventional warfare then we do from them, and it is an entirely rational belief that a nuclear deterrant might be the only thing that could prevent invasion and destruction.

 

Do you always sympathize with your enemies?

 

Of course it's an entirely rational belief that a nuclear deterrant could prevent us from invading. Of course they're justified in nuclear ambition. Of course they say we're a big threat, we are. We threaten any dirty rotten regime that has the lack of scruples to do business with terrorists. All facts.

 

There is no black and white, good or evil - objectively speaking. Objectivity has no place here though, Sisyphus. Subjectivity is the order here. Objectivity is for god.

 

There are only maybe a small handful of wars fought in the history of mankind, where one side was clearly just wrong. 99% of them are loaded with gray. Everybody has their reasons and they all think theirs is the righteous one.

 

Such is the struggle between intelligent predators.

 

I have no interest in any country on the entire globe having a nuclear weapon - including my own. And I could care less about how "unfair" it is for Iran and NK to not be allowed nukes. Who are you going to appeal to when they send nukes flying because they're even less disciplined and psychotic than we are? How are you going to sleep at night knowing you could have stopped a multi-million person mass murder, but you were too busy being "euphamisticly discouraging" rather than doing what needed to be done?

 

I don't see anything pragmatic about letting a continent of grownups and little kids laid to waste in nuclear genocide because "we don't want to look like bullies".

[GutZ]

Maybe a new direction in counter-nuclear weaponry needs some more attention. I really don't want countries to start bombing the crap out of NA, and I support the action to stop it at all cost. I don't think the problem is with Iran having nuclear weapons, it's the fact that with having nuclear weapons comes rules, if your not willing to follow them prior to making them, why would any country allow it?

 

Even if we can control the visible creations of these technologies that go on around the world eventually someone will start doing it in secert, so for me, my first statement is what concerns me the most in the long run.

[Sisyphus]

I have no interest in any country on the entire globe having a nuclear weapon - including my own. And I could care less about how "unfair" it is for Iran and NK to not be allowed nukes. Who are you going to appeal to when they send nukes flying because they're even less disciplined and psychotic than we are? How are you going to sleep at night knowing you could have stopped a multi-million person mass murder, but you were too busy being "euphamisticly discouraging" rather than doing what needed to be done?

 

I don't see anything pragmatic about letting a continent of grownups and little kids laid to waste in nuclear genocide because "we don't want to look like bullies".

 

Perhaps you should look up what the word "euphemism" means. I think that we should be bullies in this. We should be unfair and unjust, we should even kill innocent people if it helps, because we need to. My suggestion is not that we shouldn't do such things, but that we should acknowledge them for what they are. We're better than them, yes, but we're not a virtuous policeman, and thinking in that way is counterproductive, because it isn't what the debate should be about. We should all agree it's wrong. The question is whether it's worth being wrong. I think, in this case, it probably is. We are agreeing, for the most part.

 

Again, I was speaking merely to the irony of JesuBungle talking about the term "Great Satan" and failing to notice the symmetry in the "Axis of Evil." And then you missing the point in my pointing it out.

 

And yes, I do always sympathize with my enemies. What kind of a fool wouldn't?

[ParanoiA]

Perhaps you should look up what the word "euphemism" means. I think that we should be bullies in this. We should be unfair and unjust, we should even kill innocent people if it helps, because we need to. My suggestion is not that we shouldn't do such things, but that we should acknowledge them for what they are. We're better than them, yes, but we're not a virtuous policeman, and thinking in that way is counterproductive, because it isn't what the debate should be about. We should all agree it's wrong. The question is whether it's worth being wrong. I think, in this case, it probably is. We are agreeing, for the most part.

 

Again, I was speaking merely to the irony of JesuBungle talking about the term "Great Satan" and failing to notice the symmetry in the "Axis of Evil." And then you missing the point in my pointing it out.

 

Actually, I re-read your post after I posted mine and realized that I had misinterpreted your "euphemism" comment. I was getting the idea that you wanted to discourage them symbolically, without any real backbone behind it - hence a poetic use of "euphemism".

 

And I understand what you're going for in the Great Satan and Axis of Evil, but keep in mind, one is in response decades after the other, and only after an attack we could no longer ignore.

 

I've never understood the glee in pointing out how we are similar to our enemies. As if, this somehow makes us wrong, or makes them right. It just reminds us we're all human. And it blurrs the line for the weak minded.

[Sisyphus]

I've never understood the glee in pointing out how we are similar to our enemies. As if, this somehow makes us wrong, or makes them right. It just reminds us we're all human. And it blurrs the line for the weak minded.

 

That it makes us all human is precisely the point. You approach things differently if you see yourself as righteous avengers vs. cackling villains than if you see it as a pragmatic, necessary, ammoral bid for survival and dominance. Since the latter reflects reality and the former does not, and generally speaking one ought to base one's decisions on reality, then I certainly think it's wise not to forget such facts.

 

As for blurring the line for the weak minded, why, I'm surprised at you! This coming from the populist, the libertarian proponent of direct democracy? That people can't be trusted with truth?

[GutZ]

This is why rules are made...

 

[Christopher Walken's voice]

If...The child can not PLAY...nicely with the toys...you must take them, away.

[SkepticLance]

There is nothing simple, or black and white about current middle East conflicts. Al. Qaeda, in all its evil, came into being in response to historical ills.

 

Much dates back 1000 years, to the crusades. In the Muslim Middle East, the word, Crusader, is a dirty - even foul - word. To call America in Iraq a bunch of crusaders is to call them evil, in the worst possible way.

 

A more recent problem is that festering sore known as the Israel/Palestine problem. That was based on a totally evil act by America and Britain. For over 1000 years, Palestine was home to a people who were Muslim. After the holocaust, the west decided to solve the 'Jewish problem' by giving them a home. However, the homeland was occupied. No problem! The Palestinians were unceremoniously turned into refugees.

 

Naturally the Palestinian's descendents, and other Muslims did not take kindly to this, and they fought back and still fight back. I do not agree that killing innocents is a valid form of freedom fighting, but I definitely understand why they are fighting.

 

Until America addresses this situation, there will be enormous hatred of the USA throughout the Muslim world, and that will translate into terrorist actions against America. There is only one way to ameliorate the problem. America must put intense pressure on Israel to return the conquered territories to Palestine, and establish a truly independent sovereign nation. America must then pour aid into this new nation to get it onto its feet. Such an act will serve to defuse the hatred Muslims feel. Of course, there is no easy fix, and even this will not cause Al Qaeda to disappear, or to stop Iran developing the bomb. However, it is a really good start.

 

One thing that the USA should have learned by now is that aggression begets aggression. 650,000 Iraqis are now dead as a direct result of the Iraq war. Three times the number that Saddam killed, and in a much shorter time period. Al Qaeda will strike again. More Americans will die.

 

Self defense is justified. Wars of invasion are not. And they bring retribution, even to superpowers.

[ParanoiA]

As for blurring the line for the weak minded, why, I'm surprised at you! This coming from the populist, the libertarian proponent of direct democracy? That people can't be trusted with truth?

 

Well, my direct democracy bid comes from more of a distrust of politicians rather than a trust in the people. But good catch nonetheless.

[Pangloss]

Al. Qaeda, in all its evil, came into being in response to historical ills.

...

One thing that the USA should have learned by now is that aggression begets aggression.

...

Self defense is justified. Wars of invasion are not. And they bring retribution, even to superpowers.

 

And what war of invasion did the United States commit that brought about the "retribution" of 9/11?

 

That's just closed-minded, ideological nonsense. And you have NO business quoting a great man like Martin Luther King, Jr., who would NEVER have tried to make two wrongs a right as you have.

 

 

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys a community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

 

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

Does the United States have something to learn from Dr. King? Absolutely. But excusing and absolving Al Qaeda isn't the lesson I think he would have had in mind.

[ParanoiA]

It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys a community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

 

Very good quote. Why do people spend so much time trying to convince americans of stuff like this, rather than the Islamofacist murder clubs?

 

Americans don't start trouble, they finish it.

 

When our towers were struck and all of those multi-national people died, we took the gloves off and got involved.

 

America doesn't do things like the rest of the world. We're not interested in appeasing terrorism and giving them hope with dialoge and legislative change - effectively breathing life into Islamic extremist murderers. We're not interested in playing terror games with them for a hundred freakin' years like the rest of the world apparently enjoys.

 

I think that's why everyone gets so appauled at our actions. They just can't conceive of being tough on these gangster idiots. They're all used to working with them and supposedly "understanding" and "listening" to their enemy - which is why the enemy never goes away and has gotten stronger and stronger over the decades.

 

Islamic extremism has a lot to learn from Martin Luther King Jr. Too bad they're not listening...

[Pangloss]

Well I definitely agree with the points that our actions have consequences and that we've bungled a number of actions in the Middle East over the years (as have many other "outside" participants). I was opposed to Iraq and still am, and every day I think about what might have been accomplished had we not gone there.

 

But two wrongs don't make a right. Terrorists who find themselves dead and their country in ruins have nobody to blame for that problem but themselves.

 

People stopped berating the British about the sinking of the General Belgrano years ago. Some day the world will stop heckling us about Iraq.

[ParanoiA]

People stopped berating the British about the sinking of the General Belgrano years ago. Some day the world will stop heckling us about Iraq.

 

Yeah, but they'll never stop heckling us. Whoever the superpower is, gets all the blame for the world's problems.

[SkepticLance]

I have been away on a business trip for the last little while and have just seen Pangloss's reply to my posting. Clearly I must respond.

 

Pangloss said :

 

And what war of invasion did the United States commit that brought about the "retribution" of 9/11?

 

That's just closed-minded, ideological nonsense. And you have NO business quoting a great man like Martin Luther King, Jr., who would NEVER have tried to make two wrongs a right as you have.

 

First. I did not quote Martin Luther King. Re-read my posting.

 

Second. 9/11 was not an act of war. Al Qaeda is not a nation and cannot wage war. They do not have the resources for a start. 9/11 instead, was an act of gangsterism. It was a vicious, evil, monstrous act by a bunch of small time, vicious, evil and monstrous gangsters.

 

Al Qaeda is the moral equivalent of the mafia. And they need to be treated as we treat the mafia. As a bunch of criminals. In other words, police actions resulting in arrest and punishment. An international force of police needed to be set up to chase them down. Not military invasion.

 

The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not sheltering terrorists. There are vastly more (new) Al Qaeda members in Iraq today than there were before the invasion. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and no agenda to attack America. True, Saddam Hussein is an evil bastard. But there are heaps of evil bastards in the world today, leading nations, and performing terrible acts. eg. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. And the USA is not invading any of them!

 

No, the invasion of Iraq was an idiotic act by a moronic administration, for entirely the wrong motives. Oil and politics were the reasons. Not humanitarian or security considerations. And the situation now in Iraq is absolutely ghastly. It is like Viet Nam, with deaths on a massive scale. Mostly Iraqi killing Iraqi, but that would not have happened without the invasion. And as far as the USA is concerned, the invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place, and created less security for America than if Saddam had been left in place.

 

I find myself puzzling about who is the most evil man. Osama bin Laden, or President George Bush. Bush's orders have led to the deaths of 100 people for every death resulting from Al Qaeda action.