 |
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Just so that you know, Whaleboy thinks there is no ethical difference between helping old ladies cross the road, and eating babies. It all depends on "different postulates, and points of view".
God, I hate postmodernist bullshit.
|
Strawman. I think there is no moral difference, assuming the perp isn't a sociopath. There is a clear ethical difference that we can all see. Imposition like that is unacceptable in society.
quote:
And there have been there how long exactly?
|
Enough time to make a difference... 
quote:
So, you're willing to sacrifice the fait of the Iraqi people in order to prevent some unseen danger? You sound like Rummy.
|
If I thought the UN would do an inferior job, I would not suggest it is allowed to run Iraq. I believe it will do a superior job, so your point is defunct.
You are a consequentialist are you not?
quote:
I didn't know that the brits were close to the ME mentality.
|
Well there you go! There's a little bit of Gaza inside every Northerner...
quote:
Anyway, can I accept this humorous reply as an admission to a conceded point?
|
Nope. A British-led UN task force is not a unilateral American force.
quote:
"Coolitions of the Willing" are inherently shaky- If Iraq is so damned important, why leave it in the hands of a transiatory grouping of states and not make it a global task?
|

|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: We did not give democracy to South Korea. We gave them th Rhee dictatoship which slaughtered over 100,000 Koreans. The RoK only became a democracy in the 1990s. |
well, the bulk of those killed by rhee were seditionists and communists, for what that's worth.
quote: The same with most of our East Asian clients: Taiwan, Indonesia. |
when did indonesia turn into a real democracy?
quote: The Philippeans became a democracy inspite of our support of their dicator, Marcos. We only stopped backing him when it became obvious in the last six hours of his raeign he couldn't maintain control. |
didn't you love it when they found that imelda had thousands and thousands of pairs of shoes?
quote: Only in Japan did we delver on democracy. |
after a long occupation and pretty much a forced: you do things this way or we'll be here longer.
quote: Our record in Asia is very poor. If Vietnam became a democracy, it would be inspite of us, not because of us. |
apparently, early on, ho chi minh thought the us would join the war against france on vietnam's side, seeing as they were both former colonies.
quote: actually no, I've read articles recently where they'd also like some freedoms back. they fought briliantly to defeat a large imperialist power, and now they are licking the **** stick along w/ north korea. |
well, technically, you have to have eaten something to be licking a **** stick. i don't know if any nkorean has enough to actually ****.
in any case, when are the next polish elections? hopefully, their commitment won't waver further; are they a strong coalition gov't?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed
well, technically, you have to have eaten something to be licking a **** stick. i don't know if any nkorean has enough to actually ****.
|
sad but true=[
=[
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:34
|
|
quote: Two proiblems with this view I see:
1. "they have interests"? Everyone has interests. The point is that any grouping based solely on present political expediency,as the coalition that went into Iraq was, it is just waiting for collapse once members decide it is no longer politically expedient for them to stay in it.
|
But just as you said. The bulk of the weight lies on the US.
quote:
2. As for it being not trully global-what is "trully global"? According to the US the Solomon Islands are part of this darned coalition-what the hell are they doing? Dividing the pie is exactly what needs to happen here, the pie of responsibilities.
|
Truly global is something that is striving for the interests of all of humanity. A mission for the UN is a mission of people who are members of different countries, and are often former bureaucrats in the national governments. Thus they too will have interests that may not be beneficial to the world, but are beneficial for their countries.
And as long as no such global layer of people that have the power, the knowledge and the will to do so exist, the world's policeman will be either a bunch of pushy neighbours that just want their will, or the neighbourhood's bully. Such a global bureacracy doesn't exist yet, of course. It won't exist, as long as the UN doesn't collect taxes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:34
|
|
As for Krasnievski excuse for the withdrawal, I wouldn't consider Poland to be honest in this regard. Poland used to have an egotist as Prime Minister, who rejected Chirac's will to power over Europe, and who wanted to make sure Poland is on the American side. There was disagreement about it within the government (IIUC, Krasniewski was very unhappy about it), but the Prime Minister's proposal to go along with the US won in the end, because Poland definitely was scared of ending up on a side where Russia was starring.
This decision brought Poland under the spotlights of international geopolitics. Just the same as Spain, this relatively minor country enjoyed an immense prestige compared to what it was accustomed to. This emboldened the Spaniards and the Poles to reject the European constitution, that would reduce their weights in the EU.
Now, said Prime Minister is gone after the European Constitution failure, and Krasniewski is stuck with the ****-stick. He has understood how much rampage the Iraqi war has done to the PP in Spain, and he most likely doesn't want his own reign to end up like that.
It is power politics like usual. The lack of WMDs is a problem only in that the coalition's governments can't justify their war to the public opinion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We did not give democracy to South Korea. We gave them th Rhee dictatoship which slaughtered over 100,000 Koreans. The RoK only became a democracy in the 1990s. The same with most of our East Asian clients: Taiwan, Indonesia. The Philippeans became a democracy inspite of our support of their dicator, Marcos. We only stopped backing him when it became obvious in the last six hours of his raeign he couldn't maintain control. Only in Japan did we delver on democracy.
Our record in Asia is very poor. If Vietnam became a democracy, it would be inspite of us, not because of us. |
Was this a serious post? Or did you just feel like spouting blatant propoganda?
With regard to Korea, and us "giving" them the Rhee dictatorship
http://www.korea.net/learnaboutkore...ntemporary.html
Pursuant to a United Nations resolution, general elections were held on May 10, 1948, in the southern half of the peninsula (North Korea refused UN supervised elections). A constituent national assembly was formed through the elections and the constitution was framed based on democratic principles. The National Assembly then elected Dr. Syngman Rhee as the first president of the republic. He formed the government and promulgated the birth of the Republic of Korea on August 15, 1948, after three years of U.S. military government.
Why do leftists always equate being allied to a country as as imposing a government upon them?
With regard to Taiwan, we were helping the legitimate Chinese government that was recognized internationally, even by the USSR, and against what was basically a monster State in the PRC which under Mao would be one of the bloodiest and repressive governemnts in history.
Indonesia was originally a pro-Soviet state. We did not impose the dictatorship upon them, rather the local military couped after many of its senior leaders were killed by Communist gunmen.
In the Phillipines, we gave them a democracy, and the Phillipines experienced a temporary dictatorship of someone who couped after being democraticaly elected.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Japher
"It's just that some of the countries are starting to go back home too early."
I remember everyone yelling at the US' post-war stratagies, saying that they make promises and then leave the people to succumb to that which we attempt to free them from.
Then, shortly there after, I heard everyone critize the US for sitting around in Iraq for too long.
Now, I hear, US needs to get out of Iraq, we are leaving so should you.
Hypocracy at it's finest. |
I don't know. Individual lefties have different concerns. I personally was (and remain) against the war. However, once the wrong was done, it was needed to repair the mess. I never opposed occupation, and I couldn't envision the US leaving Iraq anytime soon, unless the authority gets tranferred to the UN (and the US assumes its fair share of the peackeeping after that anyway).
I suppose other individuals on the left held a consistent point of view as well. One can be consistent if one thought from the beginning the US should just leave the Iraqis alone.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
Lets give this a go yet again:
The "experiment" of making Iraq into a democracy will be a decade project at least-probably longer, assuming it does not fall apart, and not even contemplating it becoming some "shinning beacon" but isntead, like many nations in Asia and Latin America, a democracy feeling it's way around and having missteps here or there.
NOw, how long does your average national government last? Any action based on shared political interests by a grouping of governments-specially actions that are not unquestionably crucial for national security or survival are bound to be messy, if not fall apart as that common political aggreement fades, either with time, or as governments change in each member. This is why making the action part of the international legal framework is crucial-it removes important decisions form transiatory political groups- it removes a large part of the urge to make decisions based on desired political gains nationally-it makes it so costs can be shared, and burdens moved as each member state sees changes to how much they can, or care to contribute.
For this simple reason this mission needs to be given to the UN- as I said before-if it is so damned important, it can't be run based on the today political needs of the members-that is a recipe for danger.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|