 |
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
The only time that it sorta HAS worked was when the US DID back a resolution. |
So you're saying that the U.S. along with the other permanent members of the security council make the U.N. totally impotent.
I agree. I'm also sure that no one is willing to give up there veto power or their permanent seat in the name of democracy so the U.N. will never work as a voice for world peace or world progress. Thanks imperialists!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
It's not straw it's true. The U.N. is basically powerless unless 5 specific nations agree. You can only expect these 5 countries to act in their best interests. The odds of any one situation being in the best interest of all 5 of these countries is unlikely. The odds of these 5 countries voting in the best interests of the rest of the world is even more so. That is not straw, it's fact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
You basically said that conservatives support tradition because they distrust change. If that's not to dissolve into moronic paranoia, it must simply mean that they support change when it will do good and not when it won't. |
And this is what I mean. Preconcieved notions of even a discussion lead you to not read the other side's arguments.
Modern Conservatism believes in conserving tradition, as the shared historical experiences of society, and engage in gradual change, where by 'change' would have to be clearly demonstrated to be better (and not just probably better) in order to be enacted. |
1. They don't. Conservatives are quite prepared to move quie radically when it comes to eliminating programs and laws that enhance equality or advancing programs that don't.
2. Everyone believes in gradual change. No political ideology believes in changing everything at once. The caricature of radicals believing in change for its own sake is just that.
But it is still an empty principle. Which traditions are worth preserving and which aren't?
None of them are worth preserving for their own sake, so there must be some other reason. Presumably, this is just the general welfare or something like that. If that's the case then it turns out that: (a) "conservatism" is just a kind of utilitarianism; and, (b) it is not an ideology driven by values, but rather by an appraisal of the facts about what will benefit society overall.
So if conservatives are saying anything, they are saying that we should reform only where it will do some good. But everyone sane agrees with that principle - even the radicals - so it's an empty principle as far as debate goes. Each case will be different and it's useless having a general bias in favour of tradition.
But it's all smoke and mirrors anyway. In practice they don't care about anything but themselves and they will be quite quick to strike down anything that benefits the little guy.
Neo-conservatism, if that is really a useful term is meaningless. The chief neocons in the Bush administration happen to be Straussians - and that means that you can't believe a word they say (that's their doctrine - lie to the public).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Where are these examples of neocons' liberal international relations? |
Are we confusing 'liberal' as in domestic policies with 'liberal' in international relations? Liberals in IR are distinct from realists, who believe that countries should do only what is in their interest. Liberals believe in promoting international democracy. Neo-Conservativism is a more forceful liberalism. That's why Iraq is a neo-conservative action. It is meant to convert that country to a democracy. If it was a realist war, we'd get rid of Saddam, put our warlord in there and get most of our guys out.
quote:
Conservatives are quite prepared to move quie radically when it comes to eliminating programs and laws that enhance equality or advancing programs that don't. |
Are any of these programs and laws considered tradition? And have you confused reactionary with conservative? Nixon, for one, had no intention of getting rid of any programs put in place by the Democrats.
quote:
Everyone believes in gradual change. No political ideology believes in changing everything at once. The caricature of radicals believing in change for its own sake is just that. |
No, it's the truth. That why they are called radicals! Duh! I mean, radical revolution is not really gradual change is it?
quote:
Which traditions are worth preserving and which aren't? |
That depends on the society. Which traditions are considered ingrained to the society? For example, in the US context, the Constitution may be considered ingrained (as may some Judeo-Christian ethics), but social programs? Nah. Besides, the only ones who want to overturn social security or welfare are reactionaries.
quote:
It's amazing how many times the different strains of American foreign policy need to be explained... |
Indeed... I wonder if they even listen to us.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shmily_dana
|
|
Tucson,AZ USA
Aug 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
Did anyone see anything during the marches like the following article?
The Deranged On The March
There were anti-Iraq war marches all over the world Saturday to mark the
one year anniversary of the beginning of the conflict. Crowds were down
substantially from the outpouring last year, but the "hate America"
brigades were in full bloom, including right here in the U.S.A.
The San Francisco marchers are a good example. The crowd took time out
from same-sex "marriage" rallies to make signs with all of the radical
left's favorite themes, including signs reading "Death to America" and
"Support The Resistance In Iraq." Think about that - the "resistance"
these folks in San Francisco support are terrorists trying to kill our
servicemen! Bush as Hitler was another popular theme. One traitor
carried
this crowd pleaser, "I Love New York Even More Without The World Trade
Center." Finally, one couldn't help but notice the pro-Palestinian,
anti-
Israeli tenor of the demonstrators. A popular item being sold was a
tee-
shirt reading, "We Shall Return To Palestine." The shirt included a map
on
it that featured no Israel.
Media coverage was very careful to not include any of the above, instead
preferring to sanitize the demonstrators as a "whole bunch of
well-meaning
folks who just don't like war." None dare call it treason!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:34
|
|
It's kind of stupid. I'm all for free speech and all that so protest is a good way to do your democratic civil duty.
But I just can't find a way to agree with the general opinion in this camp.
First of all war is usually bad and nasty, and in Iraq it was bad too. It wasn't a happy war, where the evil Saddam supports only got killed. But that's the way it is, and that's the way it's always been.
What counts and what has only counted from the beginning is what the outcome will be. No one wants to do war for war's sake. That would be pretty evil.
What the war's outcome is, that's what counts.
Now, the war on Iraq has ended, and it's in the slow burn stage to fight the rebels and resistance and international terrorists who comes across the borders to duke it out with the US forces. This was bound to happen of course. The only question were how strong and for how long.
Now, the real job begins which is to help Iraq to rebuild, to help the new top dog in the house to be recognized as the power, to train their police forces and tell them torturing is not the normal procedure in interrogation with a suspect. Rebuilding their army. When this all is done, Iraq will be free. When they are able to fight the resistance on their own, and the process has started, the Iraqi people are free. Truly free like they haven't been in a long long time, perhaps ever.
That's what I want to see, and that's what most people want to see, that is independent country that is democratic and stabling force in the ME region. Free people and know Saddam. Slowly building but coming succesful again. They have lots of know how there. They used to be advanced country before the wars and embargoes. So they still know what's up, they only need the tools and little help. And once this is done, it means that millions of people more will enjoy freedom and most of all they don't live under dictatorship where their life is not worth anything at all and it can be taken away without justice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guardian
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
The world's largest nation has the right to remove a dictator. |
The world's largest nation is called China.
The second-largest nation - and the largest democracy in the world - is called India.
Just so you know it.
Population-wise, that is.
In terms of land area, the world's largest nation is the Russian Federation, the second-largest is Canada and the third-largest is China.
Last edited by Guardian on 25-03-2004 at 17:58
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-03-2004 06:32
I love you too, Fez.
.
|