 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
Spiffor - quote:
I remember this whole discussion between you and me started as you compared liberated European social democracies (including Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands etc.) with "liberated" Kuwait. |
That isn't what happened, you jumped into an ongoing discussion Sava and I were having about what the US has done during the past ~60 years to examine if his comparing the US with the Nazis was justified. I mentioned how the US had liberated dozens of countries during that time including Iraq and Kuwait and he dismissed Gulf War I based on the fact the US re-installed the Emir. I then asked why Kuwait doesn't count as a liberation when the liberation of France in WWII does count and he justified his selectivity by citing the ideology of the 2 countries, i.e., it's a liberation if the US re-installed "social democrats" but not a monarch. He made the ideology of France and Kuwait an issue, not me. That's when I made my comment comparing Kuwait with France wrt to evil deeds which you called "as stupid" as his comment comparing the deeds of the US with the Nazis.
quote:
Except for France, Netherlands and Belgium, which all had postcolonial wars to attend, with the horror that comes along, I don't believe there was any crime done by, say, Germany. Same thing for other countries that could escape both the nazi and soviet grasp, such as Sweden, Denmark or Norway (and even Austria). |
And I wasn't asking Sava about all those countries, just why he considers the liberation of France to be a valid liberation while he dismisses the liberation of Kuwait. His reason is ideology, not whether or not the people in those countries were better off because of the US effort to remove the brutal thugs who had invaded them.
quote:
When I deemed your comment as being "as stupid" as Oncle Boris' one, I did not mean nor imply that the number of crimes done by Kuwait in comparison to social democracies was as impressive as the number of crimes of nazi Germany in comparison to the US' (what I call a "quantitative" comparison). You understood it differently, maybe due to poor wording, certainly due to our two completely different worldviews. This is a typical misunderstanding. |
Yes, I'm aware you think I was making a statement about the comparative moral validity of social democracies and monarchies but I was merely comparing the amount of evil perpetrated by both countries to show that re-installing the Emir was not less valid than re-installing social democrats in France when the deeds of both are comparable (or, as you've pointed out, the deeds of the social democrats are worse). Consider that paradox, re-installing social democrats was preferable to re-installing a monarch even though the former continued to perpetrate the evils you've cited while no one here has cited evils committed by the Emir.
quote:
What I meant and implied is that you used the same faulty logic, in short that you compare apples and oranges. |
Sava and I were debating evil deeds committed by 2 countries - USA and Nazi Germany - which can be compared to reach a conclusion about which is/was worse, that comparison was merely expanded to include 2 more countries - France and Kuwait.
quote:
To be clear: welfare systems in Europe exist because the populations wanted it - it ceased to exist where the population didn't want it anymore (UK). Or in your libertarian terms: the Europeans are free to decide to be economically free or not - I wonder who you are to criticize their free decision. |
Are you free to vote for legalising the enslavement of %10 of the people in your country? The fact a majority voted for something has nothing to do with whether or not it was a moral thing to do. Now, I'm not equating welfare with slavery (although I do see at least one similarity), I am pointing out that 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner cannot justify the wolves voting to eat the sheep. You guys think majority rule is fine when it comes to welfare states, but I suspect you would reject the morality of majority rule if the majority wanted to commit genocide or practice slavery. That means y'all like majority rule as long as the majority either votes your way or the majority stays within limits you want in place. We just have different limits, so who are you to criticise their "free" decision? If the majority voted to abolish the welfare state, would you remain silent if you supported the welfare state? Would you say the majority was right to do what you believe is wrong?
quote:
OTOH, the Kuwaitis have no choice in their ruler, in the collective rules that bind them, etc. |
Neither do I, nether do many people in France. Would slavery in the US be validated if slaves could vote and the majority voted to keep them enslaved? And I'm not sure Kuwaiti citizens have no voice regarding Kuwait's legislative body, I believe the King merely limits what the legislature can do as the US Constitution was supposed to limit what Congress can do. Obviously the King won't let the legislature abolish his rule, but I don't know if the King makes all the laws without regard to what the legislature and citizenry wants.
quote:
The fact that you consider welfare states to be dictatorships, although the decision to be in a welfare state lies by the citizen, makes you use a faulty logic, and this logic is exactly the same as Oncle Boris' (what I call a 'qualitative' comparison). |
So what? People in Kuwait can leave too. In both countries people can leave or stay but if they choose the latter they will be subject to the rule of someone else. I'll repeat what Mel Gibson's character in the movie "The Patriot" said when his neighbors were voting on whether or not to rebel against the King of England, "why should I vote to replace 1 dictator 3,000 miles away with 3,000 dictators 1 mile away?" He was indicting both monarchies and democracies as dictatorships, the only difference was the number of people playing the role of dictator.
And it's not so much the welfare state I'm indicting as a dictatorship, but the system that allows the majority to impose it's desires on the minority. Welfare states are just one possible consequence of such a system ("democracy")... Slavery is another, and genocide is yet another...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It is not necessarily because of shared intelligence and security efforts, but because of risk assessment. I would assume, as DanS mentioned earlier, that all countries on the Visa Waiver list are also on the "we don't fingerprint you" list.
As I recall, the Visa Waiver list was based on both security concerns (i.e. Norway is okay, SA isn't) and on immigration concerns (Canada is okay, Mexico isn't). IIRC one of the key requirements was that the previous calendar year saw a lower than 3% rejection rate at the border for citizens of the country in question travelling to the US. |
Damn. Prepare to be finger printed, because Canada's border security is a poor joke. The obvious way for anyone to get into the States would be through Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, or Halifax first. Once you're past our joke for security, you're home free. Drive to the Prairies, and walk across the border in the middle of a farmers field. Or, join an old fashioned canoe trip somewhere around the head of the Great Lakes. Or, a lumber jack excursion in New Brunswick. Or...
One big bang traced across the 49th is all it will take.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:33
|
|
And when the US tightens up? What then will the bad guys do, oh enlightened one?
There was no point to skirt the US border before. It was wide open. As it closes, those so inclined will try to get around it. Let's see, Mexico in the South with tight controls and close surveillance of the crossings, or the largest undefended border in the world to the North, with nice fields to take a brief walk over? Oh, and what's this? The country to the North has a: the longest coastline in the world, and b: very little control of it's major ports for immigration, let alone patrolling the vast expanses of coast.
Gee, if they are serious about getting there, I wonder what they will do. *scratches head*
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-01-2004 09:56
|