05-02-2002 05:01									#1
	Looks like Saddam is shitting bricks Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo...000/1801293.stm

Saddam wants unconditional talks with the UN regarding the return of UN weapons inspectors. Looks like Bush's tough stance is working.

Is it going to be enough for the US though?

	05-02-2002 05:03									#2
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Personally, I think Iraq is within its rights as a sovereign nation to refuse weapons inspectors in, but I realize I'm in the minority here.

	05-02-2002 05:06									#3
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Yeah, but if it a choice between lifting of sanctions and staying in power by letting inspectors in and becoming the next target in the US' crosshairs, probably resulting in Saddam's removal from power, I would know what i would chose if I were him.

	05-02-2002 05:06									#4
	Support Apolyton

Well, certainly, but that doesn't make it right.

	05-02-2002 05:08									#5
	Tired of ads?

Well, you lose a war, you get nasty conditions put on you. Been that way throughout history.

	05-02-2002 05:13									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Again, doesn't make it right....especially because he lost a war because the US and other nations did stuff THEY shouldn't have done in the first place. And no, he wasn't justified in invading Kuwait himself, either.

	05-02-2002 05:15									#7
	Support Apolyton

I don't say I agree, but I look at what's happening. I still think it won't be enough to stop the US "relieving" Saddam of his powers.

	05-02-2002 05:18									#8
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by lightblue Well, you lose a war, you get nasty conditions put on you. Been that way throughout history.

Hmm so this justifies the starvation deaths of 500,000+ Iraqi children due to sanctions over the years?

	05-02-2002 05:19									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

David Floyd - your position on things doesn't make any sense.

People do unjustified things, and when they do, other people decide that they're not justified in doing it and do something about it. We don't live in a perfect world where everyone follows the rules and minds their own business and does what is morally correct.

	05-02-2002 05:25									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

orange-

Person A does something that is unjustified. In order to stop him, I have to do something that is unjustified, and none of my business. As two wrongs don't make a right, I simply mind my own business.

That's how we shoulda handled Saddam, IMO.

	05-02-2002 05:26									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd orange- Person A does something that is unjustified. In order to stop him, I have to do something that is unjustified, and none of my business. As two wrongs don't make a right, I simply mind my own business. That's how we shoulda handled Saddam, IMO.

Suppose that's how we should have handled Hitler too

	05-02-2002 05:27									#12
	Tired of ads?

Actually yes it is, IMO

	05-02-2002 05:29									#13
	Tired of ads?

You must be an anarchist then. If I kill you, your parents and the government have no right to do anything about it because it's none of their business.

Same principle

	05-02-2002 05:30									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Djugashvili Hmm so this justifies the starvation deaths of 500,000+ Iraqi children due to sanctions over the years?

Sanctions had nothing to do with that. Iraq receives plenty of money to feed it's people, but he insists on spending it on military purposes.

	05-02-2002 05:31									#15
	Got spare money?

Not true. My example was poor.

Insert "country" in my example instead of "person", and bingo that's what I believe.

National sovereignty trumps all, at least in terms of interactions between foreign nations.

	05-02-2002 05:34									#16
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Not true. My example was poor. Insert "country" in my example instead of "person", and bingo that's what I believe. National sovereignty trumps all, at least in terms of interactions between foreign nations.

Well then I chose to seceed from this country and form my own nation where the US rules don't apply.

Bang your dead, nothing anyone can do about it.

	05-02-2002 05:36									#17
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Well then I chose to seceed from this country and form my own nation where the US rules don't apply.

If you can convince your State to do that, you certainly have that right.

	05-02-2002 05:36									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Not true. My example was poor. Insert "country" in my example instead of "person", and bingo that's what I believe. National sovereignty trumps all, at least in terms of interactions between foreign nations.

So, what if Kuwait asked for assistance to get rid of their invaders; you'd be against that?

	05-02-2002 05:37									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Personally, I think Iraq is within its rights as a sovereign nation to refuse weapons inspectors in,

Surely as a libertarian you see the value of following contracts, David. I also fail to see how you fail to see the moarality of defending another person/country against "unprovoked" attack.

	05-02-2002 05:37									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

why should I have to convince a state?

And why doesn't Iraq have to convince the United Nations?

	05-02-2002 05:37									#21
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Yep.

Not our business, and I view the 46 (or whatever the number) of Americans who died as not worth it, because Iraq never attacked the US.

	05-02-2002 05:39									#22
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Surely as a libertarian you see the value of following contracts, David. I also fail to see how you fail to see the moarality of defending another person/country against "unprovoked" attack.

Not contracts forced upon one at gunpoint. That is illegitimate.
I already answered the other point.

orange,

quote: why should I have to convince a state? And why doesn't Iraq have to convince the United Nations?

Well, first off, I guess you don't have to convince your state if your state Constitution allows individuals to secede from the State. But you do otherwise, because other than that the State has the right to secede as a whole from the Union.

And Iraq doesn't have to convince the UN, because the UN has no power over national sovereignty.

	05-02-2002 05:43									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Yep. Not our business, and I view the 46 (or whatever the number) of Americans who died as not worth it, because Iraq never attacked the US.

Interesting, so you don't take US strategic goals into account, or do you believe the US should follow an isolationist strategy?

	05-02-2002 05:43									#24
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The US should follow a totally isolationist strategy, using force only when directly attacked by force. Economic pressure does not count as force.

	05-02-2002 05:44									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Not contracts forced upon one at gunpoint. That is illegitimate. I already answered the other point.

Sorry, but we've reached a point in democracy when the world as a whole is deciding whether a nation is wrong in doing something, and if they are, they can and SHOULD be forced into certain arrangements based on their past history. It's the only way to assure peaceful rule with the absence of dictators.

quote: orange, Well, first off, I guess you don't have to convince your state if your state Constitution allows individuals to secede from the State. But you do otherwise, because other than that the State has the right to secede as a whole from the Union.

I don't see why you want a government to have authority over its own people, but not anyone elses people, when both can just as easily not want said government's interference in whatever matter.

quote: And Iraq doesn't have to convince the UN, because the UN has no power over national sovereignty.

When a group of nations defeats another nation in a war to prevent injustice, the defeated nation should submit to the rules of the victors. You're trying to be moral by allowing the existance of dictators and madmen.

	05-02-2002 05:47									#26
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Sorry, but we've reached a point in democracy when the world as a whole is deciding whether a nation is wrong in doing something, and if they are, they can and SHOULD be forced into certain arrangements based on their past history. It's the only way to assure peaceful rule with the absence of dictators.

Which is a bad thing, and morally wrong.

quote: I don't see why you want a government to have authority over its own people, but not anyone elses people, when both can just as easily not want said government's interference in whatever matter.

Because, in the US at least, there is a mechanism for getting out of the government if you have enough other people in your state to go along with you.

quote: When a group of nations defeats another nation in a war to prevent injustice, the defeated nation should submit to the rules of the victors. You're trying to be moral by allowing the existance of dictators and madmen.

So you think the Treaty of Versailles was morally right?

	05-02-2002 05:47									#27
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The US should follow a totally isolationist strategy, using force only when directly attacked by force. Economic pressure does not count as force.

And what happens when strategically it is shown that the defeat of our allies will result in the aggressor obtaining the means and achieving the distinct advantage, to the point where any defense would only prolong the invasion and destruction of our country by the aggressor?

	05-02-2002 05:49									#28
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Not contracts forced upon one at gunpoint. That is illegitimate.

It is well within the laws of war that have been agreed to by all nations. I fail to see how one can argue that surrender agreements, contracts if you wish, are illegitimate.

quote: I already answered the other point.

Not to any meanigful extent. For instance you failed to answer why helping a US ally with access important natural resources is undeserving of protection against naked territtorial agression. What could Sadam have offered us in exchange for seeling out an ally of the US?

Ooooo, this brings up an interesting sidetrack to this discussion. To what extent would national interets guide a libertarian's foreign policy?

	05-02-2002 05:50									#29
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: And what happens when strategically it is shown that the defeat of our allies will result in the aggressor obtaining the means and achieving the distinct advantage, to the point where any defense would only prolong the invasion and destruction of our country by the aggressor?

The phrase "tough ****" springs to mind.

Except in the real world, no nation has anywhere NEAR the means to subdue the whole world, or even a significant part of it - CERTAINLY not when we have thousands of nukes

Let's stay to the real world here

	05-02-2002 05:52									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd So you think the Treaty of Versailles was morally right?

Something can be bad foreign policy and be morally right at the same time, David. The two are not mutually exclusive by any means what so ever.