The Significance of the Pickle

[JohnB]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the constitution must also be protected FROM the will of the people.

Oh God, yes. We had a Referendum (sort of) a few years ago about whether we should consider becoming a Republic. (We might be having another one soon as apparently "No" wasn't the right answer.) One of the major arguments on the "Pro" side was "We should become a Republic. We've been a Constitutional Monarchy for 100 years, it's time to try something new."

 

My standard reply of "Well, we haven't been a Military Dictatorship either, how 'bout we give that a go?" was not well received.

all systems are vulnerable to demagoguery, but I can see where a parliamentary system can be just as effective at defending a state and its people as a... well I don't know what we call ours, but whatever that is.

The more I think about it, I think a strong and impartial Judiciary is actually the key. Republic or Monarchy or whatever, without a strong Judiciary they must eventually dissolve into rule by fiat. There are many forms of Democracy around the world and I think their success/failure might be more dependent on the courts, than the government.

The people decide amendments, and thus virtually every time I go to the poll I'm being asked to vote on three or four amendments -- amendments to our constitution! It's insane. Half of the amendments are typically there to void or marginalize some previous constitutional amendment!

That is insane. Don't people realise that a Constitution is the fundamental basis for their system of government? It should only be changed after great deliberation and thought, not at a whim.

[Rev Blair]

And that's questionable, as you agree in the same statement. That's the whole point of our government, to argue things out enough so that we don't react thoughtlessly (not that it doesn't happen regardless). All of the above, that you've presumed to be illegal, is still being argued by our countrymen. It's an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that the country is split on. Our government is working to design.

 

Your government doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Did you sign the UN Convention on Torture? Yes? Have you been renditioning people, including Maher Arar, to torture? Yes. Are you in contravention of international law by doing so? Yes.

 

You may also be in contravention of your domestic laws...and you can argue that all you want...but you are definitely in contravention of international laws.

 

That's just one example...there are many others.

 

It's also not just my opinion, the laws are pretty clear.

 

 

Precisely. And I believe that has to do with not taking the office seriously enough, nor the constitution. Which is what you're actually advocating - to continue to hold the office to a gutter level reverence. That's why we get gutter level office holders. Just my opinion, of course.

 

I think it comes from taking the office too seriously. The denizens of that office ignore laws on a fairly regular basis and get away with that abuse of power because because people are afraid of the office.

 

Start perp-walking them out of the Oval Office and into a waiting police cruiser, and the abuses will slow. Make them subject to trial at Hague, and your country will regain its position as a beacon of democracy and the rule of law.

 

What I'm advocating is not gutter-level disrespect, but a healthy questioning of authority. If the rules don't apply to your president, then they don't apply to me either, after all.

 

 

A prayer is not a political statement, but the spirit of your point is noted.

 

Funny, because a couple of months ago I was asked to say grace...a very political attempt to embarrass me by an alleged Christian...and responded with, "Jesus Christ, please help me to deal with people dim enough to believe in you." I wasn't gone after for insulting Christians, or the gaggle of god freaks I was forced to dine with, but for making a political statement.

 

Getting Haggee to say the prayer at a race, given his views, his connection to the Republicans, and recent controversies, was very much a political statement.

 

You skipped my point about country music too. If the Dixie Chicks were being political, they were nothing compared to the smarmy jingoism that regularly spews from Nashvile (started out as a typo, but I decided I'd leave it).

 

I agree, but you're abandoning your point here. You said that we are "taught that experts are pointy-headed academics who live in ivory towers and don't understand real life" - I'm telling you you're wrong. We weren't taught that. Worse, we were taught that our opinions on those matters were equal to the pointy-headed academics - and they're not. Most of us don't have a college education, so most of us are basing domestic and international policy on high school intellect. That's the part you got right.

 

We are taught that though. It is the message of the Republicans in your country and the Conservatives in mine. In is the message of right-wing commentators who try to hide behind populism.

[ParanoiA]

Your government doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Did you sign the UN Convention on Torture? Yes? Have you been renditioning people' date=' including Maher Arar, to torture? Yes. Are you in contravention of international law by doing so? Yes.

 

You may also be in contravention of your domestic laws...and you can argue that all you want...but you are definitely in contravention of international laws. [/quote']

 

Rev, I'm not going to let you bait me into defending the administration's policies that I'm firmly against. I am, however, defending the american people's concerns that feed that policy. Concerns which you refuse to acknowledge in your zeal to oversimplify Bush's decisions as idiotic.

 

The US doesn't live in a vacuum, and the international community doesn't live partitioned from the US either. Saddam violated 9 UN resolutions - NINE - and the UN's answer was "uh..could you please stop doing that? Putty please???".

 

And you have the nerve to talk about violating international law.

 

International law let us down. International law did not act on an aggressor. International law played footsy for months and months and months...we have plenty of historical reference to remind us how good this is for eliminating human lives in bulk.

 

It's not that the american people and the administration's answer to this was legitimate, it's that their concerns were legitimate - concerns that were dismissed.

 

So, that brought international law into judgement. When you prove ineffective, people stop following you. That's what we did. Our country played the game as we were obligated, and the international community failed to act, failed to recognize our legitimate concerns, failed to thump the murderous dictator on his proverbial head.

 

How's that for a lack of respect for the office? We didn't revere the UN, nor hold them to any sacrosanct esteem, and look what happened.

 

I think it comes from taking the office too seriously. The denizens of that office ignore laws on a fairly regular basis and get away with that abuse of power because because people are afraid of the office.

 

Start perp-walking them out of the Oval Office and into a waiting police cruiser' date=' and the abuses will slow. Make them subject to trial at Hague, and your country will regain its position as a beacon of democracy and the rule of law.

 

What I'm advocating is not gutter-level disrespect, but a healthy questioning of authority. If the rules don't apply to your president, then they don't apply to me either, after all.[/quote']

 

We aren't going to agree on the whole office reverence thing. You think it's bad because you think it stops folks from questioning the office holder enough - perfectly valid. I think it's good because I think it's the lack of esteem for the constitution that leads to stupid leader selection to begin with - also perfectly valid.

 

And walking them out like a dope dealing perp is exactly what we want. And a healthy questioning of authority has nothing to do with holding the office in esteem. You can't separate the two, but I can. I revere the constitution and the principles it institutes. The offices are part of that. The office holders are not.

 

You skipped my point about country music too. If the Dixie Chicks were being political, they were nothing compared to the smarmy jingoism that regularly spews from Nashvile (started out as a typo, but I decided I'd leave it).

 

I'll take your word for it, since I don't listen to country music. But to pretend as if that even compares to the arrogance and ignorance displayed by the predominantly left pop culture is disingenuous, at best.

 

Spoiled brat lefty artists are the worst. That's an admitted bias on my part, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

We are taught that though. It is the message of the Republicans in your country and the Conservatives in mine. In is the message of right-wing commentators who try to hide behind populism.

 

We are not taught that here though. I've never been told that experts were pointy headed geeks. I've been told that everyone is an expert by virtue they have the right to run their mouths.

 

Incidentally, this is a shortcoming of the 'republic', in my view. A government by the people has a tendency to pander to the people, and not necessarily do what's smart, but rather what the public thinks is smart - which ends up being watered down intellect.

Edited June 6, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

Well put, ParanoiA.

[Rev Blair]

Rev, I'm not going to let you bait me into defending the administration's policies that I'm firmly against. I am, however, defending the american people's concerns that feed that policy. Concerns which you refuse to acknowledge in your zeal to oversimplify Bush's decisions as idiotic.

 

Okay, you want to talk about Bill Clinton in Bosnia? How about his failure to act, which ultimately blocked the UN from doing anything, in Rwanda?

 

How 'bout Bush Sr. invading Panama and locking up Manny Noriega to keep him from talking about what he knew about cocaine and guns?

 

Why do you suppose Guatemalans were dancing in the streets the day Reagan croaked?

 

How come nobody ever shut down the School of the Americas?

 

Who taught Chilean torturers to put live rats in women's vaginas, then sew them shut? Or should we not talk about the first 9-11?

 

What was the deal with the Gulf of Tonkin?

 

Where did the phrase "Banana Republic" come from?

 

There's a pattern here, it isn't just Bush. He's been the worst, likely because of incompetence, but he certainly isn't alone.

 

The US doesn't live in a vacuum, and the international community doesn't live partitioned from the US either. Saddam violated 9 UN resolutions - NINE - and the UN's answer was "uh..could you please stop doing that? Putty please???".

 

Saddam was cooperating with UN weapons inspectors, and those inspectors said that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The only justification for the invasion, under international law, is a clear and present danger. That danger did not exist.

 

Neither Saddam's violations nor the weakness of the UN (much of which was caused by being under constant attack from the US) do not change the matter of the US violating international law.

 

You either respect the rule of law, or you don't. If you don't, pointing at somebody else and saying, "They did it too," does not make your actions legal.

 

I'll take your word for it, since I don't listen to country music. But to pretend as if that even compares to the arrogance and ignorance displayed by the predominantly left pop culture is disingenuous, at best.

 

Spoiled brat lefty artists are the worst. That's an admitted bias on my part, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

Ever watch a Ted Nugent interview? How 'bout that Chuck Heston? Brookes and Dunn. A whole whack of actors. Even Britney got in on the pro-Bush banter...and not just because she forgot her panties. Wanna pass the entire shaker of salt over?

 

 

We are not taught that here though. I've never been told that experts were pointy headed geeks.

 

It's been part of the Republican message since Reagan began his run for president. It's the message of every right-leaning commentator you have, with the possible exception of Pat Buchanan.

 

I've been told that everyone is an expert by virtue they have the right to run their mouths.

 

Which is a part of the same message. It's ignorance parading as populism.

 

It's not restricted to your country. At another site, a in thread about how global warming is affecting Canada's north, the patter of a southern Albertan catskinner of questionable mental health was given the same or more weight than peer-reviewed science.

 

It does have a greater hold in your country though. Up here the Conservatives...neo-conservatives really...can't get above 40% in the polls despite facing the weakest opposition in living memory. Down there, they've been running things for the last eight years.

[Pangloss]

So basically we've been doing everything wrong since the Johnson administration. I see.

 

Going back to that same point in time, it's funny how you leave out the positives. Helping bring down the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, funding the UN, leadership in international charitable organization, market economics, world hunger and disease, etc etc etc.

 

The problem with partisanship is that it makes you focus on the negatives and ignore the positives. That's the entire POINT of partisanship. The forest is irrelevent, it's only the trees that matter.

[ParanoiA]

Okay' date=' you want to talk about Bill Clinton in Bosnia? How about his failure to act, which ultimately blocked the UN from doing anything, in Rwanda?

 

How 'bout Bush Sr. invading Panama and locking up Manny Noriega to keep him from talking about what he knew about cocaine and guns?

 

Why do you suppose Guatemalans were dancing in the streets the day Reagan croaked?

 

How come nobody ever shut down the School of the Americas?

 

Who taught Chilean torturers to put live rats in women's vaginas, then sew them shut? Or should we not talk about the first 9-11?

 

What was the deal with the Gulf of Tonkin?

 

Where did the phrase "Banana Republic" come from?[/quote']

 

No actually, I won't be baited into defending those policies either. If you want to talk about how the big bad america, alone, maliciously rapes the world while all of the world's governments are selfless altruistic saints, be my guest.

 

The point though, which you keep avoiding with selective history and dramatic strawmen, is that the american people still have concerns that you still keep oversimplifying while you accuse others of the same.

 

Nice try, though.

 

Saddam was cooperating with UN weapons inspectors' date=' and those inspectors said that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The only justification for the invasion, under international law, is a clear and present danger. That danger did not exist.

 

Neither Saddam's violations nor the weakness of the UN (much of which was caused by being under constant attack from the US) do not change the matter of the US violating international law. [/quote']

 

Try again. You conveniently skipped the bit on Saddam violating 9 UN resolutions, international law, which were agreed to in order to save his thug leadership, while the UN did next to NOTHING about it. Their response to blatant aggression from a proven aggressor was a pathetic display of appeasement to the rest of the world to give him a break.

 

Don't lecture me on law. If the UN were a ruling power, they should be overthrown. I suppose now you'll defend all historical references of revolutions since they were all "illegal" right? We judged your UN, and decided they weren't equal to the challenges they claimed responsibility for. We were right about that.

 

If I were in charge, I would have withdrawn from the UN a long time ago, I would never have invaded Iraq, since it was unnecessary, and I would answer all of their demands with my middle finger.

 

Ever watch a Ted Nugent interview? How 'bout that Chuck Heston? Brookes and Dunn. A whole whack of actors. Even Britney got in on the pro-Bush banter...and not just because she forgot her panties. Wanna pass the entire shaker of salt over?

 

No. They still don't compare to your multi-generational lefty elitist crybabies stuck on their teen angst and emotional logic gates. I've been watching that shit since I was a child, growing up in NASCAR country, no less. The righty version is pathetically tame but I'm enjoying your intellectual cartwheels trying to pretend it's comparable.

 

It's been part of the Republican message since Reagan began his run for president. It's the message of every right-leaning commentator you have, with the possible exception of Pat Buchanan.

 

Wrong. The right-leaning commentators we have call the leftists the pointy-headed geeks. I would be flattered if I were you. Rush Limbaugh actually tries to make fun of smart people - actually attempts to argue that smart people should be ignored. Go figure.

 

Which is a part of the same message. It's ignorance parading as populism.

 

It's not restricted to your country. At another site' date=' a in thread about how global warming is affecting Canada's north, the patter of a southern Albertan catskinner of questionable mental health was given the same or more weight than peer-reviewed science.

 

It does have a greater hold in your country though. Up here the Conservatives...neo-conservatives really...can't get above 40% in the polls despite facing the weakest opposition in living memory. Down there, they've been running things for the last eight years.[/quote']

 

Yes, it's quite bothersome. Rest assured, we are fighting the good fight. I'm not sure how likely we are to win in my lifetime though. I think our country is going to have to suffer more consequences before the lessons are truly learned. Or maybe that's just life, cycled over and over again.

 

Or maybe, if people were to recognize their concerns as valid, and then show them the correct answer, rather than to dismiss their concerns, we could see an incremental change for the better. But we're too partisan here for that, I'm afraid.

[Rev Blair]

So basically we've been doing everything wrong since the Johnson administration. I see.

 

Going back to that same point in time, it's funny how you leave out the positives. Helping bring down the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, funding the UN, leadership in international charitable organization, market economics, world hunger and disease, etc etc etc.

 

The problem with partisanship is that it makes you focus on the negatives and ignore the positives. That's the entire POINT of partisanship. The forest is irrelevent, it's only the trees that matter.

 

Way to shift those goal posts! You accuse me of being partisan and just hating Bush, and when I give other examples you go after me for not giving the examples YOU want me to. You guys are kind of funny.

 

No actually, I won't be baited into defending those policies either. If you want to talk about how the big bad america, alone, maliciously rapes the world while all of the world's governments are selfless altruistic saints, be my guest.

 

Nice strawman. I've never claimed any of of that.

 

The US, by its powerful position, does bear more responsibility than other nations though. You don't get to demand that others follow your laws while breaking those same laws yourself.

 

Try again. You conveniently skipped the bit on Saddam violating 9 UN resolutions, international law, which were agreed to in order to save his thug leadership, while the UN did next to NOTHING about it. Their response to blatant aggression from a proven aggressor was a pathetic display of appeasement to the rest of the world to give him a break.

 

Don't lecture me on law. If the UN were a ruling power, they should be overthrown. I suppose now you'll defend all historical references of revolutions since they were all "illegal" right? We judged your UN, and decided they weren't equal to the challenges they claimed responsibility for. We were right about that.

 

If you rape a prostitute, you're still a rapist.

 

Hussein was contained. He was not attacking any of his neighbours. His nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs had been at a standstill for over a decade. He had no viable WMD and no way of producing any. Things weren't good in Iraq, but food and medical aid was getting in...and before you go off on a rant about Oil for Food, I suggest you learn the facts about that.

 

If I were in charge, I would have withdrawn from the UN a long time ago, I would never have invaded Iraq, since it was unnecessary, and I would answer all of their demands with my middle finger.

 

Withdrawing from the UN would achieve what, exactly? It certainly wouldn't change the fact that the US is signatory to various international treaties...including the Geneva Conventions...and helped to write much the international law it now thinks it can break with impunity.

 

No. They still don't compare to your multi-generational lefty elitist crybabies stuck on their teen angst and emotional logic gates. I've been watching that shit since I was a child, growing up in NASCAR country, no less. The righty version is pathetically tame but I'm enjoying your intellectual cartwheels trying to pretend it's comparable.

 

 

Apparently your bias has over-ridden your ability to see what's going on around you. Or you've bought into the Limbaugh/O'Reilly spin. Either way, you're wrong. Right wing celebrities are every bit as bad as left wing celebrities when it comes to political issues.

 

Wrong. The right-leaning commentators we have call the leftists the pointy-headed geeks. I would be flattered if I were you. Rush Limbaugh actually tries to make fun of smart people - actually attempts to argue that smart people should be ignored. Go figure.

 

Those commentators deliver the Republican message. They lay the base for the subtext of the speeches the politicians make. Trying to separate the two amounts to pedantry.

 

Or maybe, if people were to recognize their concerns as valid, and then show them the correct answer, rather than to dismiss their concerns, we could see an incremental change for the better. But we're too partisan here for that, I'm afraid.

 

They've been shown the correct answers time and again. Social programs are both more effective and less expensive than prisons. Educated people earn more money than uneducated people. Treatment and harm reduction programs reduce drug crime more than the war on drugs. Backing petty dictators for short term interests bites you in the ass a decade or so later. Science works. Taking things by force...whether it's bananas or oil...has consequences. Conventional armies do not do well against insurgencies. Abstinence is not sex education. Racism leads to social problems. Mixing religion and politics ultimately leads to fewer religious freedoms. "Jaw jaw is better than war war," as Churchill said.

 

We learned most of these things over a century ago.

[ParanoiA]

The US, by its powerful position, does bear more responsibility than other nations though. You don't get to demand that others follow your laws while breaking those same laws yourself.

 

No, I reject the notion that we bear any more responsibility than any other nation. We're not your parents by merit, despite what the conservatives believe. And you're right, you don't get to demand that others follow laws while you don't - equally, that authority doesn't get to cherry pick which laws it's going to enforce. All or nothing baby.

 

If you rape a prostitute' date=' you're still a rapist.

 

Hussein was contained. He was not attacking any of his neighbours. His nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs had been at a standstill for over a decade. He had no viable WMD and no way of producing any. Things weren't good in Iraq, but food and medical aid was getting in...and before you go off on a rant about Oil for Food, I suggest you learn the facts about that.[/quote']

 

You still refuse to acknowledge the dynamics of power and law. Law is only legitimate when it is enforced by a legitimate entity. When the UN failed to act on 9 separate acts of war exercised by a recent, proven aggressor, then they proved themselves illegitimate. And let's not even get into the corruption poisoning that whole organization. There is a laundry list of reasons to conclude the UN impotent.

 

Again, I'm not going to defend their reaction though, it was equally wrong. My countrymen are pissed about this. I'm not going to play the one-sided game you're playing and pretend as if they don't matter. I would have handled it much differently, but then that's because I'm concerned about the moral high ground. When we invaded, we lost any remnant of such an idea. It wasn't the right decision. Half of my country doesn't agree with me, but I'm working on that.

 

Withdrawing from the UN would achieve what, exactly? It certainly wouldn't change the fact that the US is signatory to various international treaties...including the Geneva Conventions...and helped to write much the international law it now thinks it can break with impunity.

 

Withdrawing from the UN would be the first step to reclaiming our sovereignty and begin the process of both recasting the US as a nation that does not police the world and will require alliances be based on merit. The UN would have to prove its worthiness. There are good things the UN does that we don't hear about everyday. I think it's good if we be a part of that, but not at the expense of ineffective security and corruption.

 

Apparently your bias has over-ridden your ability to see what's going on around you. Or you've bought into the Limbaugh/O'Reilly spin. Either way, you're wrong. Right wing celebrities are every bit as bad as left wing celebrities when it comes to political issues.

 

Not nearly as prolific nor as pretentious. I've never heard a right wing star "go off" on lefties as if none of them were in the room. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one too. And you can drop the Limbaugh / O'reilly comments since my first and only reference to them was my negative opinion of them. That suggests you're more concerned with scoring emotional points rather than logical ones by misrepresenting my allegiances.

 

Wrong. The right-leaning commentators we have call the leftists the pointy-headed geeks. I would be flattered if I were you. Rush Limbaugh actually tries to make fun of smart people - actually attempts to argue that smart people should be ignored. Go figure.

Those commentators deliver the Republican message. They lay the base for the subtext of the speeches the politicians make. Trying to separate the two amounts to pedantry.

 

That's got squat to do with my statements. The commentators are delivering the republican message' date=' which is that pointy headed geeks don't understand international affiars, and shouldn't be listened to. That lays the base for the subtext of the speeches the politicians make, as you put it. No separation exercised. What point do you think you're making here?

 

They've been shown the correct answers time and again. Social programs are both more effective and less expensive than prisons. Educated people earn more money than uneducated people. Treatment and harm reduction programs reduce drug crime more than the war on drugs. Backing petty dictators for short term interests bites you in the ass a decade or so later. Science works. Taking things by force...whether it's bananas or oil...has consequences. Conventional armies do not do well against insurgencies. Abstinence is not sex education. Racism leads to social problems. Mixing religion and politics ultimately leads to fewer religious freedoms. "Jaw jaw is better than war war," as Churchill said.

 

We learned most of these things over a century ago.

 

Wrong, we learned most of these things centuries ago. There's a reason they say history repeats itself. Stop making excuses to rape the prostitute, as you said above. You're doing that hypocritical thing again, where you accuse others of the same actions you're guilty of.

 

Your post here implicitly endorses the dismissal of their concerns by essentially replying that you've already tried showing them the correct answer and that didn't work, so now you're resorting to partisanship.

 

Yeah, way to lead by example. That's just what our country needs isn't it? The same ole shit we've been doing since I was born. Finger pointing and circle jerking.

 

All this is great stuff for your writing job, but don't sluff this off like even handed critical analysis. Writer's style often can't be bothered with such things.

[Phi for All]

Where did the phrase "Banana Republic" come from?

This one was not caused by the US. Before we were a country, European ships were plying the coasts of Africa and South America, sending scouts into the interior looking for metals like bauxite, copper and tin. When they found it, the next ships brought steel rails and locomotives to establish a railhead so they could bring the ore to the coast where still other ships would take the ore home.

 

The Europeans encouraged the natives to plant bananas along the rail route and traded goods for the popular fruit. The natives changed their whole economies to take advantage of this trade. Unfortunately, when the mines played out, the Europeans pulled up the rails and loaded everything on ships headed on to the next mining site, leaving the natives with a huge supply and no demand.

 

The natives themselves picked up the European class system of a few privileged individuals at the top, governing a huge working class of peons. So now the term Banana Republic is given to any government that has a shaky economy based on antiquated economics with a dictatorial leadership that is mostly corrupt and abuses the masses.

 

Sorry to key on this one bit. James Burke is my favorite scientist/historian and this was the topic of a segment of one of his many PBS television shows.

 

[/history tidbit]

[Pangloss]

Way to shift those goal posts! You accuse me of being partisan and just hating Bush, and when I give other examples you go after me for not giving the examples YOU want me to. You guys are kind of funny.

 

Nice strawman. I've never claimed any of of that.

 

Sure you did, you made an overall generalization about American foreign policy and you said that your examples proved it. No goalposts have been shifted.

 

Proof:

 

The US, by its powerful position, does bear more responsibility than other nations though.

[Rev Blair]

Sure you did, you made an overall generalization about American foreign policy and you said that your examples proved it. No goalposts have been shifted.

 

I responded to the claim that I was just bashing Bush by giving several examples going back several administrations. That was responded to by some nationalistic (not to mention questionable...Lech Walesa arguably had more to do with ending the Cold War than Reagan) chest beating.

 

The thing is that I never claimed that the US never did any good, just that there were, and still are, problems that need to be addressed.

 

Whether you like it or not, your country has decided to be the world's policeman...to reach out beyond your borders and protect what you have chosen to define as your interests abroad. That kind of decision does come with a responsibility and, since there is no sign that any of your leaders plan to close up the borders and stay home, your country must accept that responsibility.

 

You still refuse to acknowledge the dynamics of power and law. Law is only legitimate when it is enforced by a legitimate entity. When the UN failed to act on 9 separate acts of war exercised by a recent, proven aggressor, then they proved themselves illegitimate. And let's not even get into the corruption poisoning that whole organization. There is a laundry list of reasons to conclude the UN impotent.

 

And when Kofi Annan pushed for reforms to address those problems, the US was first in line (China second) to tell him to piss off.

 

The UN responded to Iraq's actions with the tools that it had. The US has been instrumental in ensuring those tools are inadequate.

 

Much of US antipathy to the UN has little or nothing to do with the UN's shortcomings though, but its ability to question US actions around the world and its ability to express a consensus that the US doesn't like.

 

Withdrawing from the UN would be the first step to reclaiming our sovereignty and begin the process of both recasting the US as a nation that does not police the world and will require alliances be based on merit. The UN would have to prove its worthiness. There are good things the UN does that we don't hear about everyday. I think it's good if we be a part of that, but not at the expense of ineffective security and corruption.

 

It would be the next step towards the demise of the US as an international power. You would be giving up your voice on the Security Council, you would be losing influence in Europe and Asia. That kind of isolationism is not something you can afford is this day and age. Your power and influence is already ebbing, your economy is in pretty serious trouble, and your international reputation is in tatters.

 

The UN does many good things, you are right about that. You should be working to build on that, for your own good.

 

Not nearly as prolific nor as pretentious. I've never heard a right wing star "go off" on lefties as if none of them were in the room. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one too. And you can drop the Limbaugh / O'reilly comments since my first and only reference to them was my negative opinion of them. That suggests you're more concerned with scoring emotional points rather than logical ones by misrepresenting my allegiances.

 

Maybe it's a matter of talent...you just haven't noticed the celebs on the right because they aren't talented enough. I doubt it though...your reference to "lefties" is kind of laughable to those who live in more moderate countries. Obama would be centre-right in most places, Kucinich a centrist. A lot of your leftties look pretty right-handed to a lot of us.

 

That's got squat to do with my statements. The commentators are delivering the republican message, which is that pointy headed geeks don't understand international affiars, and shouldn't be listened to. That lays the base for the subtext of the speeches the politicians make, as you put it. No separation exercised. What point do you think you're making here?

 

That Your claim that you aren't taught that experts...that would be academia...aren't, in your words, "pointy headed geeks," doesn't hold up. You claimed that is just a message of the right-wing pundits. It has been the subtext of the Republican message, and I recall several politicians referring to ivory towers and academics not living in the real world. The pundits say it outright, then the politicians refer to it more gently. The message gets repeated over and over again. That, whether you admit it or not, teaches people not to trust experts.

 

 

Wrong, we learned most of these things centuries ago.

 

Centuries ago we lacked the data though. Advances made in the late 19th and 20th centuries really showed that those things worked.

 

 

 

Your post here implicitly endorses the dismissal of their concerns by essentially replying that you've already tried showing them the correct answer and that didn't work, so now you're resorting to partisanship.

 

My post encourages us to stand up and say, "NO you're wrong." There's nothing implicit about it. Is it a partisan position? I don't see how it can be...I don't see a lot of politicos standing up and saying that outright. I don't hear a lot of talk of how crime rates drop with increased social programs or policies recommending that we provide heroin to addicts coming out of the US. We know those things work because we've tried them elsewhere, but they aren't even a part of the discourse in your country and are only a minor part in mine.

 

If wanting fact-based legislation makes me partisan, then so be it.

[ParanoiA]

And when Kofi Annan pushed for reforms to address those problems' date=' the US was first in line (China second) to tell him to piss off.

 

The UN responded to Iraq's actions with the tools that it had. The US has been instrumental in ensuring those tools are inadequate.

 

Much of US antipathy to the UN has little or nothing to do with the UN's shortcomings though, but its ability to question US actions around the world and its ability to express a consensus that the US doesn't like. [/quote']

 

The UN did not enforce its laws. The UN dismissed 9 acts of aggression, violations of an agreed upon cease-fire with an aggressor that invaded a non-hostile country, and terrorized its civilians - 602 of which died in custody - their families unaware of their fate for almost a decade.

 

That's a concern.

 

So, when I say the UN dismissed our concerns, that = "a consensus that the US doesn't like". No argument there.

 

The tools it had, were not good enough, right. That's exactly it.

 

And it would be interesting for you to elaborate on your first statement.

 

It would be the next step towards the demise of the US as an international power. You would be giving up your voice on the Security Council' date=' you would be losing influence in Europe and Asia. That kind of isolationism is not something you can afford is this day and age. Your power and influence is already ebbing, your economy is in pretty serious trouble, and your international reputation is in tatters.

 

The UN does many good things, you are right about that. You should be working to build on that, for your own good.[/quote']

 

I believe it would be the best thing for us. Non-interventionism is not isolationism. There's no reason to isolate ourselves. We don't need to be influencing Europe and Asia. Our reputation will improve once we've lived up to the notion that we don't have any auto-right to interfere nor proliferate internationally militarily. We protect our homeland fiercely, and gangly.

 

Alliance should be based on merit of the given situation, in my opinion. I don't like prearranged agreements for military obligations. Our sovereignty is not for sale. I've even chewed on the idea of an amendment to restrict declaration of war to a popular vote of the people (there are couple of issues that jump out at me that I can't quite work around).

 

We're a capitalist country. We're supposed to be focused on business, low taxes, free trade, not war and empire building. When we become more of a "business" state, a sanctified economic orgy, then we can lose the big bully reputation. But it would definitely take some time to prove. Right now, there's too much business in war.

 

That Your claim that you aren't taught that experts...that would be academia...aren't, in your words, "pointy headed geeks," doesn't hold up. You claimed that is just a message of the right-wing pundits. It has been the subtext of the Republican message, and I recall several politicians referring to ivory towers and academics not living in the real world. The pundits say it outright, then the politicians refer to it more gently. The message gets repeated over and over again. That, whether you admit it or not, teaches people not to trust experts.

 

Oh, we're saying the same thing then, I think. We both agree that the right wing message is not to trust ivory tower book worms. And yes, it has worked. Because people like to think their ideas are worthy and can engage, even when they haven't given it much thought at all.

 

But do we agree it's not taught in academia to concede to ivory tower intellectuals? A subtle difference, but distinctive.

 

Centuries ago we lacked the data though. Advances made in the late 19th and 20th centuries really showed that those things worked.

 

My post encourages us to stand up and say' date=' "NO you're wrong." There's nothing implicit about it. Is it a partisan position? I don't see how it can be...I don't see a lot of politicos standing up and saying that outright. I don't hear a lot of talk of how crime rates drop with increased social programs or policies recommending that we provide heroin to addicts coming out of the US. We know those things work because we've tried them elsewhere, but they aren't even a part of the discourse in your country and are only a minor part in mine.

 

If wanting fact-based legislation makes me partisan, then so be it.[/quote']

 

Standing up and saying "No, you're wrong" puts people on the defensive. Centuries of data and psychology conclude that's the case. So, it's not real effective.

 

Instead, you might try to actually engage them. Find out what basic principle has them hung up, their concern, and then attempt to show them how their reaction to that is wrong. Or, at least, how you believe it to be wrong. Don't debate them, convince them.

 

Otherwise, you're just choosing a side and throwing poop.

Edited June 8, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Rev Blair]

The UN did not enforce its laws. The UN dismissed 9 acts of aggression, violations of an agreed upon cease-fire with an aggressor that invaded a non-hostile country, and terrorized its civilians - 602 of which died in custody - their families unaware of their fate for almost a decade.

 

That's a concern.

 

So, when I say the UN dismissed our concerns, that = "a consensus that the US doesn't like". No argument there.

 

The UN didn't "dismiss" those acts of aggression, they just didn't agree that they were grounds for a military invasion. Sanctions were already in place and there were few further actions that could be taken.

 

The case was also not helped by US actions. You got caught spying when you were supposed to be inspecting weapons. You refused to acknowledge your past relationship with Hussein or your role in suppling dual use technology in the past. You showed up with some cartoon drawings of trucks as "proof" that Saddam had WMDs. You never even tried to explain why your government claimed the massacre of the Kurds was done by Iran until Bush decided he wanted a war.

 

You treated the greater international community with hostility and derision and you wonder why they didn't back you up. You launched petty attacks on other members of the Security Council (Freedom Fries? WTF?) and then got all petulant when they told you to piss off.

 

The tools it had, were not good enough, right. That's exactly it.

 

it has been the US and China who have most opposed the strengthening of those tools. You can't have it both ways.

 

And it would be interesting for you to elaborate on your first statement.

 

Annan had been trying to get reforms since before he was Secretary General. He came up, after much study, with two sets of options when he was SG. He specifically said that the lists weren't meant to be a la carte, that each set of options needed to be kept complete.

 

There was a reason for that, of course. You can't create more SC seats and bring in new voting rules without checks and balances, and those checks and balances need to be specific to the new rules. It was also obvious that if everybody just presented their own wants, the entire process would fall apart.

 

The US led the charge to select a few options from each list, even while launching a jihad against Annan over Food for Oil. Ultimately, they sent Bolton to the UN, a slap in the face of the entire institution. The US was instrumental in undermining attempted reforms even while Bush and Bolton screamed that reform was needed.

 

I believe it would be the best thing for us. Non-interventionism is not isolationism. There's no reason to isolate ourselves. We don't need to be influencing Europe and Asia. Our reputation will improve once we've lived up to the notion that we don't have any auto-right to interfere nor proliferate internationally militarily. We protect our homeland fiercely, and gangly.

 

You don't have to intervene in anything though. Being a member of the UN does not require interventionism. In fact most member states of the UN would be very happy if you quit intervening.

 

You do need to be influencing Europe and Asia though. The UN is not just about military might...they delve into everything from trade to aid to global warming. If you won't play with the other kids, they won't ask you to the party when you want to be there.

 

I don't know if you are familiar with the concept of soft power, but the US really needs to learn how to use it.

 

Alliance should be based on merit of the given situation, in my opinion. I don't like prearranged agreements for military obligations. Our sovereignty is not for sale. I've even chewed on the idea of an amendment to restrict declaration of war to a popular vote of the people (there are couple of issues that jump out at me that I can't quite work around).

 

Then drop out of NATO. There's a hell of a lot more to the UN than military obligations. In fact, nobody in the UN has any military obligations they didn't sign on for. The UN might ask, but you get to say no.

 

We're a capitalist country. We're supposed to be focused on business, low taxes, free trade, not war and empire building. When we become more of a "business" state, a sanctified economic orgy, then we can lose the big bully reputation. But it would definitely take some time to prove. Right now, there's too much business in war.

 

Much of your business is based on your big bully reputation. Read Paul Bremer's edicts when he was running Iraq...they pretty much spell out how intertwined that war was with your economic interests. Not just oil either.

 

Your economic history has very much been intertwined with your interventionism.

 

But do we agree it's not taught in academia to concede to ivory tower intellectuals? A subtle difference, but distinctive.

 

We can agree as long as we exclude the teaching of Straussian theory in pol-sci courses.

 

My concern is what the greater electorate is taught though, and most of that electorate learns from the mass media, not in universities.

 

Standing up and saying "No, you're wrong" puts people on the defensive. Centuries of data and psychology conclude that's the case. So, it's not real effective.

 

Instead, you might try to actually engage them. Find out what basic principle has them hung up, their concern, and then attempt to show them how their reaction to that is wrong. Or, at least, how you believe it to be wrong. Don't debate them, convince them.

 

I've been engaging them all of life. The basic principles that hang them up are religion, TV and other forms of mass ignorance. You can stand there giving facts, statistics, examples all day and night, but they'll still sit there drinking their whiskey and insist that all drug users should be locked up...except their friends who smoke pot, of course. That's different.

 

There is no common ground, and there is no convincing them. They are proud of their ignorance and they know that all of facts came from academics in ivory towers.

[Pangloss]

I responded to the claim that I was just bashing Bush by giving several examples going back several administrations. That was responded to by some nationalistic (not to mention questionable...Lech Walesa arguably had more to do with ending the Cold War than Reagan) chest beating.

 

You know, say what you want, but don't think for a moment that what you're doing in this thread rests on any higher moral ground that "nationalistic chest beating".

 

 

The thing is that I never claimed that the US never did any good, just that there were, and still are, problems that need to be addressed.

 

I think that's very much what you're doing when you downplay specific contributions that aren't even relevent to your argument. But fine, if that's your claim, so be it.

 

 

Whether you like it or not, your country has decided to be the world's policeman...to reach out beyond your borders and protect what you have chosen to define as your interests abroad. That kind of decision does come with a responsibility and, since there is no sign that any of your leaders plan to close up the borders and stay home, your country must accept that responsibility.

 

Oh no, you don't get to dodge responsibility for that. The rest of the world is as responsible for us being "the world's policemen" as we are. You yourself chastised the US earlier in this thread for "not taking action" in Rwanda -- never mind the fact that nobody else was taking action either, wouldn't support American action, and would have accused us of acting against the world's interests if we had. Not only is the popular anti-American notion of our responsibilities abroad ass-backwards, it's also revisionist and hypocritical.

 

 

Though for what it's worth, I mainly agree with your points about Iraq and the UN above, and disagree with ParanoiA in that regard (though I respect his opinion on it).

 

 

 

Obama would be centre-right in most places, Kucinich a centrist. A lot of your leftties look pretty right-handed to a lot of us.

 

Whew, that's good to know! Thank god! (breathes a sigh of relief)

[Rev Blair]

Oh no, you don't get to dodge responsibility for that. The rest of the world is as responsible for us being "the world's policemen" as we are. You yourself chastised the US earlier in this thread for "not taking action" in Rwanda -- never mind the fact that nobody else was taking action either, wouldn't support American action, and would have accused us of acting against the world's interests if we had. Not only is the popular anti-American notion of our responsibilities abroad ass-backwards, it's also revisionist and hypocritical.

 

 

Though for what it's worth, I mainly agree with your points about Iraq and the UN above, and disagree with ParanoiA in that regard (though I respect his opinion on it).

 

You essentially stopped other nations from taking action in Rwanda because you refused to use the word genocide. You blocked it at the Security Council level.

 

It goes deeper than that too, the president's plane was shot down by Ugandan rebels, which really precipitated things. It was shot down by a US missile that was last seen in Iraq during the Gulf War.

 

Was the US solely to blame? Of course not, Belgium, France, and Britain all bear some level of responsibility. I've argued long and hard that the Canadian government should have taken action without the blessing of the UN too.

 

The US was the big player though, the leader of the pack.

[Pangloss]

Well, I'll give you credit for spreading the blame between Democrats and Republicans, and for coming back to share responsibility amongst nations.

 

I have a problem with people saying that we're "the leader of the pack", but then criticizing us when we do "lead the pack". I think your selections show a bias based on a predetermined goal (criticizing the US), I think you're justifying that criticism through the use of 20/20 hindsight about issues that were not at all clear at the time, and I think you are placing ideological goals ahead of what's actually the best course of action in specific situations.

 

But I say that not to be insulting, but just to tell you what my reaction is to what you're saying. In fact I respect your opinion a lot more having had this discussion, and I certainly understand you a lot better now. Why don't more members STAND UP for what they believe in? I give you huge credit for that, and I'll bet ParanoiA will agree with me there.

[Rev Blair]

I have a problem with people saying that we're "the leader of the pack", but then criticizing us when we do "lead the pack". I think your selections show a bias based on a predetermined goal (criticizing the US), I think you're justifying that criticism through the use of 20/20 hindsight about issues that were not at all clear at the time, and I think you are placing ideological goals ahead of what's actually the best course of action in specific situations.

 

Well, I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the past about what to do in the future. Rwanda and Darfur are very different situations, for instance, but the lessons of Rwanda can and should be applied to Darfur.

 

I don't think those lessons are limited to the US either. Check out the Canadian government's inaction on Darfur or our government's reluctance to use any sort of soft power now.

 

You do lead the pack though. Like Spidey's uncle said, "With great power comes great responsibility." That's something great powers of the past accepted...the British and Roman Empires are generally cited as examples...but that the US has always been reluctant to take on.

 

The other reason you get criticized a lot is that you have the potential to be so much better and have shown that in the past.

 

Think about it...The New Deal, Kennedy (the Peace Corps, Cuban Missile Crisis etc), Carter's attempts at a Mid East peace agreement, the writings and efforts of your founding fathers. Hell, Nixon getting China to start talking. You've headed for that position of being a shining city on the hill quite a few times in one way or another, sometimes big and sometimes small, but then back away from it.

[ParanoiA]

The UN didn't "dismiss" those acts of aggression, they just didn't agree that they were grounds for a military invasion. Sanctions were already in place and there were few further actions that could be taken.

 

That's a dismissal. When the UN decides that 9 acts of aggression by a proven aggressor in the midst of a cease-fire isn't grounds for action, then they are not a legitimate world authority. Period. Their authority is grounds for suspicion and judgement. Good intentions do not equal good results.

 

The case was also not helped by US actions. You got caught spying when you were supposed to be inspecting weapons. You refused to acknowledge your past relationship with Hussein or your role in suppling dual use technology in the past. You showed up with some cartoon drawings of trucks as "proof" that Saddam had WMDs. You never even tried to explain why your government claimed the massacre of the Kurds was done by Iran until Bush decided he wanted a war.

 

You treated the greater international community with hostility and derision and you wonder why they didn't back you up. You launched petty attacks on other members of the Security Council (Freedom Fries? WTF?) and then got all petulant when they told you to piss off.

 

Yep' date=' all true. They were doing the same thing you're doing - oversimplifying a threat, dismissing acts of war by a thug still technically at war with a cease-fire agreement that's apparently not worth the paper it's written on.

 

The UN failed to stop the US from illegally launching a war too. Where's the sanctions on us? Where's the UN resolution to remove us from Iraq?

 

The UN lacks the tools and the resolve to fulfill its mission statement. That's a problem. And the US reacted to that problem like a petulant child with loaded weapons.

 

The US led the charge to select a few options from each list, even while launching a jihad against Annan over Food for Oil. Ultimately, they sent Bolton to the UN, a slap in the face of the entire institution. The US was instrumental in undermining attempted reforms even while Bush and Bolton screamed that reform was needed.

 

Well, in your opinion anyway. We get the same kind of thinking here with reform and welfare - the right's idea of reforms is to let babies starve, old people to eat dog food, families living in the gutter downtown, that sort of BS.

 

The UN has been on the right's hit list for a long time. Kofi Annan leading some charge to clean up corruption in the UN would be like charging Bush to clean up corruption in the US.

 

No, you're selectively reviewing history here through the lenses of someone who doesn't have any issues with Kofi and the Oil for Food swindle. Sorry, I'm going to point my finger at him just like Bush jr. Both of them seem to be bought and paid for, but I think Kofi might have profited more from it, or at least his son.

 

You don't have to intervene in anything though. Being a member of the UN does not require interventionism. In fact most member states of the UN would be very happy if you quit intervening.

 

You do need to be influencing Europe and Asia though. The UN is not just about military might...they delve into everything from trade to aid to global warming. If you won't play with the other kids' date=' they won't ask you to the party when you want to be there.

 

I don't know if you are familiar with the concept of soft power, but the US really needs to learn how to use it.[/quote']

 

Right, I know we can be part of the UN without having to dedicate troops in any capacity, and that's the only acceptable level of membership for the US, in my opinion. However, they also have to merit even that much participation, and right now there's too much corruption, a wishy washy mission objective, not to mention the obvious contradiction to the war in Iraq. The UN should scale back to humanitarian altruism and leave war out of it until they have the resolution to commit and act.

 

I would never sell out my sovereignty to a circle jerk. Someone invades my country, or commits an act of war, we should make our decision - declare war or whatnot, and then do it. To get permission from the neighbors is laughable. I'm not a warmonger, but rather a defense monger. And I don't like the slightest reproachment of our right to defend ourselves, even if merely ceremoniously.

 

And the Iraq war was not self defense. It was not justified.

 

Much of your business is based on your big bully reputation. Read Paul Bremer's edicts when he was running Iraq...they pretty much spell out how intertwined that war was with your economic interests. Not just oil either.

 

Your economic history has very much been intertwined with your interventionism.

 

Yes' date=' and that's the reputation I'd like to squash. We've been using WWII as an excuse to get in everyone's business. We've also been using War Resolutions to absolve congress from responsibility for these conflicts, undermining the constitutional requirement to declare war, to obligate resolution and commit to a goal. War resolutions allow you to define victory in multiple ways - none of which have to even resemble victory.

 

Of all the things that contribute to interventionism, this is arguably the worst.

 

I've been engaging them all of life. The basic principles that hang them up are religion, TV and other forms of mass ignorance. You can stand there giving facts, statistics, examples all day and night, but they'll still sit there drinking their whiskey and insist that all drug users should be locked up...except their friends who smoke pot, of course. That's different.

 

There is no common ground, and there is no convincing them. They are proud of their ignorance and they know that all of facts came from academics in ivory towers.

 

Oh sure there's common ground, and there as much chance you of convincing them as them convincing you. Ask yourself, how hard you are to persuade. It shouldn't be any surprise to expect the same from them.

 

Your thoughts and philosophy comes from years and years of conditioning. To reverse that is working against nature. That's a big job. Can't expect people to drop their life's ideological disposition easily. And yes, people will rationalize around any fact to the contrary, it's instinctive.

 

Changing people's minds is extremely difficult, time consuming. Mostly fruitless, infinitely thankless, but definitely worth it.

 

But I say that not to be insulting, but just to tell you what my reaction is to what you're saying. In fact I respect your opinion a lot more having had this discussion, and I certainly understand you a lot better now. Why don't more members STAND UP for what they believe in? I give you huge credit for that, and I'll bet ParanoiA will agree with me there.

 

Oh, yeah, I certainly agree. Rev hasn't just stood up, but has also carefully explained himself with class and wisdom. I don't think Rev's as biased as I first thought he was. He seems perfectly willing the spread the blame, even though the US receives the bulk of it.

 

Ultimately, though, we're philosophically worlds apart. I just don't believe in responsibility in power routine. I don't believe we should lead any pack, but rather just be followed. There's a subtle difference there. Leading suggests self promotion. Being followed suggests merit. I'd rather our country lead by example, and spread democracy and freedom by impression.

[Rev Blair]

That's a dismissal. When the UN decides that 9 acts of aggression by a proven aggressor in the midst of a cease-fire isn't grounds for action, then they are not a legitimate world authority. Period. Their authority is grounds for suspicion and judgement. Good intentions do not equal good results.

 

The proper reaction to that is to address the weaknesses though, not walk away, or increase the weaknesses by undermining what authority they do have.

 

The UN is designed to be a fragile organisation, for it's power to come from the membership. It has no power beyond the agreements that the members sign and can only exert power if the membership lets them.

 

The reason it is set up that way is specifically to avoid impinging on the sovereignty of the member states.

 

Yep, all true. They were doing the same thing you're doing - oversimplifying a threat, dismissing acts of war by a thug still technically at war with a cease-fire agreement that's apparently not worth the paper it's written on.

 

I'm not dismissing anything. I do think the UN got a bad rap on Iraq and that's not only overshadowed the many good things they achieve, but allowed a lot of their shortcomings to go unnoticed.

 

Keep in mind that the terms of the ceasefire were agreed to by all involved. The UN acted as a broker or mediator, but they were not responsible for the terms. Those were determined by those involved, including the US, not the United Nations. That includes actions that could be taken when violations occurred.

 

The UN failed to stop the US from illegally launching a war too. Where's the sanctions on us? Where's the UN resolution to remove us from Iraq?

 

The UN lacks the tools and the resolve to fulfill its mission statement. That's a problem. And the US reacted to that problem like a petulant child with loaded weapons.

 

Sanctions were suggested against the US, but it was made clear that you (no doubt with the backing of Britain) would just veto them at the Security Council.

 

Is that a problem? Yeah, the permanent five having a veto is a massive problem. They wouldn't be at the table at all...especially the US and China...without that power though. Sometimes you have to take what you can get and hope to make some incremental gains over time.

 

Well, in your opinion anyway. We get the same kind of thinking here with reform and welfare - the right's idea of reforms is to let babies starve, old people to eat dog food, families living in the gutter downtown, that sort of BS.

 

The UN has been on the right's hit list for a long time. Kofi Annan leading some charge to clean up corruption in the UN would be like charging Bush to clean up corruption in the US.

 

No, you're selectively reviewing history here through the lenses of someone who doesn't have any issues with Kofi and the Oil for Food swindle. Sorry, I'm going to point my finger at him just like Bush jr. Both of them seem to be bought and paid for, but I think Kofi might have profited more from it, or at least his son.

 

No, it's not just my opinion. Annan brought forth two sets of reforms and said, very clearly, that each set had to be taken as whole for the process to work. Most experts agreed with The US then led the stampede to pick and choose specific reforms instead of choosing one set or the other.

 

The only way the UN can be reformed is from within. The packages Annan proposed were good an quite achievable, though far from perfect.

 

As for Oil for Food, the UN went to the US to tell them about corruption within the program more than once. The US chose to do nothing about it. Bush was praising the program right up until Annan said that the war in Iraq was illegal, then the claims of corruption began.

 

Again, that's not my opinion, just the sequence of events.

 

Annan was found to have done nothing wrong. His grown son had some relatively minor involvement, but blaming parents for the actions of their grown children strikes me as silly at best...I sure as hell don't think my parents should be held responsible for things I've done in my life.

 

Right, I know we can be part of the UN without having to dedicate troops in any capacity, and that's the only acceptable level of membership for the US, in my opinion. However, they also have to merit even that much participation, and right now there's too much corruption, a wishy washy mission objective, not to mention the obvious contradiction to the war in Iraq. The UN should scale back to humanitarian altruism and leave war out of it until they have the resolution to commit and act.

 

Without US participation, the US does not get a say though. Given the interconnectedness of world events and the USA's dependency on internationalism of one sort or another, I think walking away would be a huge mistake.

 

More than that, the US can be a positive influence on the UN and vice versa.

 

Want to stop the abuse of children by UN peacekeepers? Step up and make it possible for the UN to prosecute American peacekeepers.

 

Want to rebuild your reputation on the international stage? Sign some agreements and work with other countries. Negotiate. Compromise. Don't veto everything...accept that you can't win every battle. Practice true diplomacy.

 

It won't hurt your sovereignty, instead it will enhance it.

 

That's something you learn living in a middle power.

 

Yes, and that's the reputation I'd like to squash. We've been using WWII as an excuse to get in everyone's business. We've also been using War Resolutions to absolve congress from responsibility for these conflicts, undermining the constitutional requirement to declare war, to obligate resolution and commit to a goal. War resolutions allow you to define victory in multiple ways - none of which have to even resemble victory.

 

Of all the things that contribute to interventionism, this is arguably the worst.

 

I agree, but I'd add that if you bring in electoral reforms that diminish the influence that corporations have on government, you'll find that a lot of the interventionism goes away all by itself.

 

Oh sure there's common ground, and there as much chance you of convincing them as them convincing you. Ask yourself, how hard you are to persuade. It shouldn't be any surprise to expect the same from them.

 

Your thoughts and philosophy comes from years and years of conditioning. To reverse that is working against nature. That's a big job. Can't expect people to drop their life's ideological disposition easily. And yes, people will rationalize around any fact to the contrary, it's instinctive.

 

Changing people's minds is extremely difficult, time consuming. Mostly fruitless, infinitely thankless, but definitely worth it.

 

But part of changing people's minds is telling them that they are mistaken.

 

Not that you don't agree, but that you don't agree because their viewpoint doesn't make sense.

[ParanoiA]

Rev, I'm trimming down the number of quotes I'm replying to as some of this stuff we're still progressing and some of it we're not. If I leave something out you want to pursue, feel free to bring it back.

 

The proper reaction to that is to address the weaknesses though' date=' not walk away, or increase the weaknesses by undermining what authority they do have.

 

The UN is designed to be a fragile organisation, for it's power to come from the membership. It has no power beyond the agreements that the members sign and can only exert power if the membership lets them.

 

The reason it is set up that way is specifically to avoid impinging on the sovereignty of the member states. [/quote']

 

I realize that Rev, and that's why this is not a simple issue. And that's what started this whole pickle thread. You oversimplifying Bush's policies as "idiotic" when they are policy decisions shared by at least half the land. Maybe we're all idiots, but we're certainly democratic in that case. The UN is not sufficient for this scenario. They cannot gaurantee any sustainable force. That's just a reality that we have to acknowledge. Their resolutions are napkin promises.

 

I'm not dismissing anything. I do think the UN got a bad rap on Iraq and that's not only overshadowed the many good things they achieve' date=' but allowed a lot of their shortcomings to go unnoticed.

 

Keep in mind that the terms of the ceasefire were agreed to by all involved. The UN acted as a broker or mediator, but they were not responsible for the terms. Those were determined by those involved, including the US, not the United Nations. That includes actions that could be taken when violations occurred.[/quote']

 

Yes and their mediator obligations haven't changed. If they're not going to mediate then unilateral action is pretty much gauranteed. We're just saying the same basic things to each other, it seems at this point. The UN took a lead role, and dropped the ball. I'm not saying they're some awful organization that should have known better, I'm just acknowledging their shortcomings. This is a big one.

 

Annan was found to have done nothing wrong. His grown son had some relatively minor involvement, but blaming parents for the actions of their grown children strikes me as silly at best...I sure as hell don't think my parents should be held responsible for things I've done in my life.

 

If that's true, then I'll certainly back off from my finger pointing. But I have a feeling this would go entirely differently if we were talking about GWB and his son being involved in a corruption scandel. I don't think anyone would give GWB the same fair shake you appear to have given Kofi. I still think the US has legitimate, well at least rhetorical reasons not to trust or deal with Kofi on the level. They are clearly in contention, the US, again, being the bad guy.

 

Without US participation' date=' the US does not get a say though. Given the interconnectedness of world events and the USA's dependency on internationalism of one sort or another, I think walking away would be a huge mistake.

 

More than that, the US can be a positive influence on the UN and vice versa.

 

Want to stop the abuse of children by UN peacekeepers? Step up and make it possible for the UN to prosecute American peacekeepers.

 

Want to rebuild your reputation on the international stage? Sign some agreements and work with other countries. Negotiate. Compromise. Don't veto everything...accept that you can't win every battle. Practice true diplomacy.

 

It won't hurt your sovereignty, instead it will enhance it.

 

That's something you learn living in a middle power.[/quote']

 

That's something you enjoy living in a middle power - no responsibility. You're not guarding the top of the hill.

 

I'm trying to be recognized like a middle power while enjoying the reality of superpower. I don't accept responsibility for the world, and don't really want a say. I just want to trade, travel, and be the example of freedom and success. Leave us alone militarily, and we'll leave you alone. Want some help from a hurricane disaster? Great, here we come. Need someone to break up a civil war? Go ask Canada or France, let them take the mudslinging for their efforts for awhile.

[Rev Blair]

That's something you enjoy living in a middle power - no responsibility. You're not guarding the top of the hill.

 

Ah, let's start here. Not taking responsibility is one of the things I go after my government for the most. We started the peace keeping thing, yet we don't really do it anymore. We came up with the idea of 0.07% of GDP/GNP going to international aid, but we've never come close to meeting that figure. We pushed the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, yet have failed to act on it.

 

Our last Prime Minister pissed off Bono so badly that Bono gave out the PM's number on stage.

 

I think that middle powers have to take a lot of responsibility. I think that's even more true for Canada because we push the ideas on others and are often instrumental in originating those ideas.

 

If you guys want to rag on us for not taking responsibility, feel free. You may find me trying to explain the political situations that "cause" us not to take that responsibility. Please don't take that as me approving of my government's actions (or lack thereof). It's just that I think revealing the excuses limits the ability to use those excuses in the future.

 

As for "guarding the top of the hill," I think that's exactly what middle powers are best at. It's just a question of which hill.

 

If that's true, then I'll certainly back off from my finger pointing. But I have a feeling this would go entirely differently if we were talking about GWB and his son being involved in a corruption scandel. I don't think anyone would give GWB the same fair shake you appear to have given Kofi. I still think the US has legitimate, well at least rhetorical reasons not to trust or deal with Kofi on the level. They are clearly in contention, the US, again, being the bad guy.

 

The only time I recall defending Bush on anything was when his daughters were in the news for partying etc. Not the same, I know, but kids will be kids.

 

I also don't recall Neil Bush's involvement in the Savings and Loan Scandal having much effect on either George the elder or Neil's siblings.

 

Yes and their mediator obligations haven't changed. If they're not going to mediate then unilateral action is pretty much gauranteed. We're just saying the same basic things to each other, it seems at this point. The UN took a lead role, and dropped the ball. I'm not saying they're some awful organization that should have known better, I'm just acknowledging their shortcomings. This is a big one.

 

It is a big one, but again the US could be very influential in changing things. No other single country, not even China or Russia, wields both the power and the influence that the US does.

 

I realize that Rev, and that's why this is not a simple issue. And that's what started this whole pickle thread. You oversimplifying Bush's policies as "idiotic" when they are policy decisions shared by at least half the land. Maybe we're all idiots, but we're certainly democratic in that case.

 

Half of your country didn't create these policies though. Let's face it, Bush was elected (barely) for his social conservatism. He was re-elected (barely) because of a mixture of that social conservatism and the failure of your media to spread the word about his lies regarding Iraq.

 

Even if everybody who voted for Bush understood the complexities of foreign policies...and the American public is notoriously uneducated about such things, hardly anybody votes on foreign policy.

 

As for Bush's domestic policies, those aren't entirely honest either. Let's face it, he basically turned the keys to the kingdom over to a few corporate robber barons and some radical right religious leaders. I don't recall him promising that in either election campaign.

 

The UN is not sufficient for this scenario. They cannot gaurantee any sustainable force. That's just a reality that we have to acknowledge. Their resolutions are napkin promises.

 

Nothing is sufficient though, at least short of a world government, and if you're about your sovereignty being diminished by the UN you certainly aren't going to support that.

 

The UN is the only game in town though...there is no other organisation that is even close in scope, mandate, and influence. There is little or no chance of creating one.

 

So you can strengthen the agency we have, or you can work to weaken it further. For the last eight years, and arguably since the early sixties, the US has been a negative force within the UN.

 

Something I keep wondering is what the US is going to do when its power is gone. You've been heading that way for quite some time. You will become a lower power eventually...and I'd bet on sooner rather than later. When that happens you will want a strong, vibrant UN. You will lack the power and influence to bring that about by that time though.

[ParanoiA]

If you guys want to rag on us for not taking responsibility' date=' feel free. You may find me trying to explain the political situations that "cause" us not to take that responsibility. Please don't take that as me approving of my government's actions (or lack thereof). It's just that I think revealing the excuses limits the ability to use those excuses in the future.

 

As for "guarding the top of the hill," I think that's exactly what middle powers are best at. It's just a question of which hill.[/quote']

 

Nah, I don't want to rag on your country for that. That's actually where I'd like to be. I don't agree with altruism dictated by government. It's a conflicted disposition. Of course, that gets into my crazy ideas of freedom and liberty and an extreme limited role for government, restricted to the basics of law and order and establishing the framework to support individual success through merit. This does not reconcile well with socialism.

 

The government's perogative, verbally, I would agree should be humanitarian in spirit but should carry no authority. It should come directly from the people. We're never going to advance as a species until we can practice freewill, individually, without a government presence.

 

Without getting too far off track here, government, to me anyway, is a necessary institution due to the malicious nature of man. So I don't agree with mass investment in that institution, but rather minimal investment. I'd prefer a slow, incremental disconnect from the institution of coersion at a pace that compliments our evolution - replaced by freewill. Seems to me that should be the ultimate goal of mankind; to not need to be governed.

 

So, obviously, for a guy like me, assigning new responsibilities for governments is entirely contrary to my agenda. I humbly reject this notion of responsibility due to power status - which is really just a measure of economy and security force. Do I take responsibility for my neighborhood just because I'm the richest and I've got the biggest, most advanced guns in my closet?

 

The only time I recall defending Bush on anything was when his daughters were in the news for partying etc. Not the same' date=' I know, but kids will be kids.

 

I also don't recall Neil Bush's involvement in the Savings and Loan Scandal having much effect on either George the elder or Neil's siblings.[/quote']

 

George the elder got slammed in politics like anybody else, and he still wasn't the polarized figure GWB is. GWB is genuinely, intensely hated. I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. GWB seems to be magnetized to polemy.

 

It is a big one, but again the US could be very influential in changing things. No other single country, not even China or Russia, wields both the power and the influence that the US does.

 

That's true, but 1) that doesn't fix the present scenario with Iraq and cease-fire violations, blatant acts of war answered with appeasement and beaurocracy. 2) we'd have to redefine our investment in the organization. At this point, it should be clear that I'm never going to sign on to my government forcing me to contribute funds for altruism. However, a certain amount of diplomatic altruism is certainly necessary and justified, so I'd like to see us revisit this, as a country, and then reconcile our membership.

 

If we are instrumental in change, again, I'd rather that be purely because we merit being followed, not because we forced everyone to see it our way because we contribute 20% to the UN budget and we got the military resources they need.

 

Half of your country didn't create these policies though. Let's face it, Bush was elected (barely) for his social conservatism. He was re-elected (barely) because of a mixture of that social conservatism and the failure of your media to spread the word about his lies regarding Iraq.

 

The media failed because he didn't lie. The rhetoric polarized the masses and so the disingenuous method of intelligence gathering (like ording an assessment report in 2 weeks that generally requires a year or more) went essentially unchallenged by the base. It's what happens when your partisanship causes you to oversell your accusations. If a guy steals a donut and you tell everyone he robbed the store, don't be surprised if people take his side over it.

 

Even if everybody who voted for Bush understood the complexities of foreign policies...and the American public is notoriously uneducated about such things' date=' hardly anybody votes on foreign policy.

 

As for Bush's domestic policies, those aren't entirely honest either. Let's face it, he basically turned the keys to the kingdom over to a few corporate robber barons and some radical right religious leaders. I don't recall him promising that in either election campaign. [/quote']

 

I would agree with that except during wartime. The Iraq war, like any war being waged during an election, was a huge foreign policy issue that americans put at the tip top of their list.

 

As for the corporate barons, we'd have to argue specifics. Much of my principles involve freedom from government judgement of my property. Wealth redistribution is theft. A republic that isn't equally invested in its government is a republic invested in class warfare and blatant conflict of interest - neither of which hold the interest of the entire republic in higher esteem.

 

As long as I can push the tax burden on to someone else, usually rationalizing the effort with appeals to unnecessary riches on the backs of the poor, then that is a tilted game. It's the equivalent to giving the losing football team extra possessions because they're behind. Our country is based on capitalism and merit, not on equalizing strenghts and weaknesses. Dislike it if you want, but I don't try to push capitalism off on socialist countries and I'd like to expect the same.

 

That in mind, you're certainly right in calling him out on the numerous times he's bailed out the rich and ignored the poor. That also isn't consistent with a meritocracy. I wish I had some specifics as I remember this coming up over and over during his presidency. I also have a big issue with corporate theives being given the red carpet treatment. People lose their entire life savings in 401K investments and some of the jokers responsible for it evade jail time and still get to keep their retirements. I say throw them in with the rest of fodder. They are criminals. Treat them that way.

 

Something I keep wondering is what the US is going to do when its power is gone. You've been heading that way for quite some time. You will become a lower power eventually...and I'd bet on sooner rather than later. When that happens you will want a strong, vibrant UN. You will lack the power and influence to bring that about by that time though.

 

Are you kidding? We're going to stay the superpower forever and ever and ever and ever....

 

Seriously though, you may be right that we will want a strong UN and I think we also won't want the legacy of the bully state to answer to either. Our influence on the UN should be by impression rather than coersion. We will always be criticized one way or another, but I'd like to put an end to our coersive military persona.

 

The UN deserves a humbled prestige. It's the only game in town, and monopolies aren't good for anybody. Maybe you don't agree with my approach to withhold membership pending merit rather than to help to compell merit. It's a decent point. Perhaps I should give it more thought.

Edited June 13, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Rev Blair]

Without getting too far off track here

 

Er, the thread is called "The Significance of the Pickle." It's named for a song by the same guy who had to include the phrase, "This is a song about Alice, anybody here remember Alice?" in his most famous song because these things tend to go a little off-track.

 

Feel free to wander.

 

I personally spent several hours of my day mired to the axles with no beer and wet cigarette papers. I have no idea who invented the Jack-All, but I likely owe him a huge debt of gratitude...along with man who invented the chain and whoever it was that taught me to say, "Utinae," which is Cree and not very polite.

 

I'd explain the political implications, but I doubt anyone here has heard of Vic Toews or Bill Blaikie.

 

Anyway, there's a zombie movie on my TV, so I'll have to respond to the rest later.

[PhDP]

[...] but I doubt anyone here has heard of Vic Toews or Bill Blaikie.

 

I do, and I don't like either of them (which is not surprising, I cast blank votes at both the provincial and federal elections).