Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Discussion: Sovernty of Nations
Freejack
Jake the Not-so-Wise
in Zocalo v2.0
I'd like to open a topic for discussion:
In discussing Iraq I believe one of the biggest bones of contention is that Iraq is a sovereign nation and therefore should not be invaded without first launching an offensive against someone else and that got me thinking about the sovereignty of a nation and what that means to the people living in that state.
In recent history one of the most established conventions has been the sovereignty of a nation and its ability guard its boarders and care for its people. The recent established belief is that no one nation has the right to invade or control another defined state. Many wars have been fought when one nation invades or tries to take over control of another.
Its assumed on the world stage that a particular country can best serve the needs of its population, but what if a country fails to uphold its sovereign duty to its people? Do other countries or possible a world organization have a right to invade or take over the governing of that nation?
What are your opinions? To keep emotional interjections at bay please try to keep this general and philosophical, this is [b]not[/b] a discussion about the US or Iraq.
------------------
[i]You can't loose hope when things are hopeless,
thats when you need even more hope...and to cover your ears and go YAHH, YAHH, YAHH.[/i]
In discussing Iraq I believe one of the biggest bones of contention is that Iraq is a sovereign nation and therefore should not be invaded without first launching an offensive against someone else and that got me thinking about the sovereignty of a nation and what that means to the people living in that state.
In recent history one of the most established conventions has been the sovereignty of a nation and its ability guard its boarders and care for its people. The recent established belief is that no one nation has the right to invade or control another defined state. Many wars have been fought when one nation invades or tries to take over control of another.
Its assumed on the world stage that a particular country can best serve the needs of its population, but what if a country fails to uphold its sovereign duty to its people? Do other countries or possible a world organization have a right to invade or take over the governing of that nation?
What are your opinions? To keep emotional interjections at bay please try to keep this general and philosophical, this is [b]not[/b] a discussion about the US or Iraq.
------------------
[i]You can't loose hope when things are hopeless,
thats when you need even more hope...and to cover your ears and go YAHH, YAHH, YAHH.[/i]
Comments
Worst case scenario?
Its only with the past 100, maybe 120 years, that the idea that war is immoral and not a legitimate action of the state has become existant. Soverign states do have the right to wage war on each other, because they are in absolute command of their powers.
Now if you want to elimintate war essentialy what you must do then is to curb, or remove soverignty. A higher governmental authority is needed, an authority which itself becomes by defniniton of having any kind of enforcement powers of the rules, above all other entitities, the soverign.
Goodluck in finding one of those.
And who makes up the rules and who would interpet them?
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
Governmental. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/eek.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
People make fun of the US, hate us even. Disagree with us nearly all the time. But i bet there is no other nation on the planet that can say they have citizens from every corner of the globe. If your human you can become a citizen of the US (and in some wacky areas of florda and San Fransico so can your pet) You may hate bush, fine great. But he is the president and its gotta be hard for this guy right now. All the critizicim (some worth it some really stupid) Iraq is going to **** around in the world, and he knows it as do most people. he is trying to get us to really realize it without a mushroom cloud over san diego. Iraq will **** around in the world, its going to happen. (personally i say lets take over the country and make it the 51 state, how much will that piss off al qaeadadgagewaadgiadieigida)
Is a nation soverign? Yes it is, and no it isnt. when you live in your house, you can do just about anything you want. but if you have a party and blast eminem while your mormon neighbor is home, he is going to call the cops on you. Right now, the US is the cops, By choice and by the fact that no other nation really wants to do it or has the money or tech or people to do it.
Americans like the idea of being isolationist. its in our history, its usually only when other nations force us to be otherwise that we arent (germany, russia, spain) After the cold war we were looked to to still hold a huge leadership in the world. Many americans dont give a shit about other nations domestic problems. We really dont. If we did we might have been able to get rid of UBL before 9/11.
But we gotta still be leaders, because the world dictates it. They tell us we cant go alone, no you cant do this no no no. But what would happen if someone nuked paris? or frankfurt? or syndey? They will go after the bastards and probably ask us to help.
and we would.
Being a soverign nation means being cool with the rest of the world. have an army, fine cool awesome. Build nukes? trust us we know its bad we got em. The world doesnt want anyone to have em. Not even us. hell we dont want em. Build germ weapons? thats just waaay bad nobody should have to tell you but if you need somebody, read The Stand.
Each nation has its own right to observe international treatys, tis is true. Look at the US, we didnt sign the Kyoto Treaty and that pissed off a lot of nations. I dont think Iraq signed the Germ or Nuke treatys, but the rest of the world did and in that case Invasion or inspectors or a bunch of shit can be done to resolve that. The kyoto treaty the nations could boycott some of our stuff or tax it or other stuff as punishment for not signing it.
Earth. One planet under the biggest ****ing homeowners Assiocation ever.
Hate us or love us, being american is a great frigging thing and i wouldnt trade it for anything, not even for candy. mmmmmm candy.
Rant. Off. Sorry for the Curses [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
"You know were england would be without the good ole US of A? The smallest ****ing province in the Russian empire." - Kevin Kline [i]A fish called wanda[/i]
[This message has been edited by Rogue Trader (edited 10-18-2002).]
***Hands RC a fresh bag of Gummy bears***
You be ok. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
[b][snip] But i bet there is no other nation on the planet that can say they have citizens from every corner of the globe. If your human you can become a citizen of the US [/snip][/b][/quote]
NZ's population grows through immigration. We have people from all over the globe, pretty much every country where there are people who can afford to move from there to here. They can all become citizens.
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
------------------
Passive fields. January two thousand and twelve. A nation that stands alone. Cold voices, faces pale, Gathered unto their judgement day. Such words remain unspoken. Such pride remains unbroken. Just mothers to stand in vain and cry. Tears and medals in the rain. Shall I recall when justice did prevail? No reason to be found why reason did fail. The all clear resounding. The way was clear to rebuild this land. Shall I call on you to guide me well, To see our hopes and dreams fulfilled? On this day of our ascension.
VNV Nation - Honour
hey im american i dont know anything about other countrys remember? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
With regard to Iraq, there are so many issues attached to the question of it’s sovereignty – a US president who was selected, not elected at the head of the most powerful nation on earth, ‘guiding’ a nation where half the population doesn’t trust him and his administration – oil is another question – WMD, to name a few.
Let's talk about WMD, because this issue is at the core of what sovereignty means in the 21st Century.
To play Devil’s Advocate, even though Saddam isn’t overtly threatening anyone now, if the world waits to deal with him, given WMD, his first act of aggression could kill thousands of people. Should we wait until thousands are killed, which would give us the legal and moral high ground to justify assaulting Iraqi national sovereignty? Or, given WMD and a potential threat of their use, should we move before thousands are killed? But what of Iraqi sovereignty?
In general, national sovereignty should be seen in the context of a world community. Since we all share a small planet with limited resources and since humankind has acquired the ability to destroy the planet’s environment, for the sake of the longevity of not only humankind, but all of the other living things on earth, nations must agree to live by a simple set a rules that protect the world community, or otherwise forfeit sovereignty. We have to decide together what those rules should be. We must together decide how those rules will be governed and enforced. And indeed, the people of earth did put together rules and organizations to deal with these issues – the United Nations and the Security Council.
By the rules of sovereignty, a country has the right to protect its citizens and assets. By the rules of the United Nations one nation must not interfere with the sovereignty of another without cause, and that cause is only self-defense.
It is easy for the world to see the United States as an aggressor, because Iraq has not overtly threatened the United States, and because the legitimacy of the United States’ motivation is at question.
Unfortunately, the United States designated itself as the protector of democracy and human rights, which is really the job of the United Nations and the Security Council. Yet, since the United States has killed most of it’s native population, forced the rest onto reservations of mostly useless land, engaged in slavery, only recently given the right to vote to women, covertly props up dictators around the world for the sake of political expediency, interferes in the free elections of other nations, failed to protect the human rights of people oppressed by its own corporations, engages in black budget government projects that are harmful to its own citizens in order to experiment with WMD and psychoactive drugs - given all of this, it is difficult for the rest of the world, indeed for its own people, to see the United States as a valid protector.
Though the United Nations is by no means perfect (and I don’t ever expect to see perfection initiated by humans), it does have the opportunity to provide a more objective voice when it calls for the protection of the environment, human rights, and national sovereignty. This is why I think that Iraq is a United Nations/ Security Council problem – not a United States problem. It’s a question of legitimacy to the rest of the world.
This is not to say that Iraq and Saddam are not a threat to its neighbors and perhaps even to people on the other side of the world, including the United States. The threat is legitimate. I think that most of the world agrees to this. And so the UN must act – quickly and effectively. If the UN fails in this, its primary function, then we are left with a world in which the strongest will take action, because it can, regardless of legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
Iraq, and other rogue nations (meaning nations that threaten world stability and peace), is a difficult problem – a problem the United Nations was organized to deal with. Do to WMD, because a first act of aggression could have horrendous consequences, the United Nations is at a major turning point. It can take the lead in dealing with this difficult issue, or loose its legitimacy. What sovereignty means in a world of weapons of mass destruction is the core issue to be faced.
This is a turning point for the United States too. In dealing with the difficult problem of WMD held by rogue nations, the United States can be see as a leader in the process off helping to create a safe world community, or it can be see as a world bully. The outcome of all of this will depend on wisdom. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that wisdom is at the core of the Bush administration agenda.
[b]Though the United Nations is by no means perfect (and I don’t ever expect to see perfection initiated by humans), it does have the opportunity to provide a more objective voice when it calls for the protection of the environment, human rights, and national sovereignty. This is why I think that Iraq is a United Nations/ Security Council problem – not a United States problem. It’s a question of legitimacy to the rest of the world.
[/b][/quote]
I think you put to much faith in the United Nations, its history is filled with indecision and inaction and being used as a vehicle by everyone to achieve their own domestic aims, its nothing more then an over blown smokey back room where real politik is conducted under a polite illusion.
The UN Charter is a good set of ideals to aspire to.
Likewise, the United States has good ideals to aspire to in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
At this crossroad, humankind has the choice to work towards those ideals or to fail this test. If we fail this time, in my opinion, there is a very good chance that humankind will become extinct, or very nearly so.
If the United States and the United Nations do not live up to the ideals at their centers, then it is up to The People to do something about it. For instance, I love my country for the ideals at its core. I criticize my country to the extent that it doesn't live up to its ideals. Descent is absolutely essential. Otherwise, the hubris of the elite may be the main quality that decides our fate.
One thing for sure is that we can't continue warring with one another. The stakes are too high. Our survival depends upon finding another way.
The cynic will say that humans have always warred with one another. But while war has always been, those wars were in the context of no mass communications, no Internet connectivity, general illiteracy, and ignorance. We no longer have the luxury of those excuses. Now any halfwit can understand that with dwindling resources, growing population, growing degradation of the earth environment, and weapons of mass destruction the only sane thing to do is find a way to get along.
It seems to me that the UN is the perfect vehicle for helping this process along – at least in potential. It’s a good idea. Now the people must insist that the UN live up to its ideals. We can no longer afford the luxury of letting someone else do it for us. We no longer can afford to let others do our thinking for us. The people of the world, despite their differences and insecurities, MUST join together in order to preserve our future. Never in the history of humankind has this been truer. We may have always warred before, but that was then, this is now.
Bringing it back home, while sovereignty is a legitimate way of protecting regional interests, we must think beyond sovereignty to the idea of a world community.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-18-2002).]
[b]Unfortunately, the United States designated itself as the protector of democracy and human rights, which is really the job of the United Nations and the Security Council. Yet, since the United States has killed most of it’s native population, forced the rest onto reservations of mostly useless land, engaged in slavery, only recently given the right to vote to women, covertly props up dictators around the world for the sake of political expediency, interferes in the free elections of other nations, failed to protect the human rights of people oppressed by its own corporations, engages in black budget government projects that are harmful to its own citizens in order to experiment with WMD and psychoactive drugs - given all of this, it is difficult for the rest of the world, indeed for its own people, to see the United States as a valid protector.
[/b][/quote]
The US government also supplied Iraq and other extremist governments most of those WMDs they now have. Plus, the fact that they supported the execution of many communist idealists in several other countries during the cold war.
------------------
Talk is silver, but violence is gold.
[b] The US government also supplied Iraq and other extremist governments most of those WMDs they now have. [/b][/quote]
Once again I find myself looking at a very damning statement, and I must again ask another person: What is your source on that?
As for Randy's comments: that is all true if you want to look at the dark side of the picture. However I still believe we are ahead of the curve on 'good' and human rights, and have done more good than any previous superpower or empire (if you feel the need to call us that). There are plenty of other governments in the world right now where I doubt you would be comfortable saying things like that for fear of repercussion; heck even in 'perfectly innocent' europe and in pacific nations just in the last 50-75 years, my point is every country has baggage; you can't trust anyone all the time. So in a way I agree with you: However the UN while a good peace body is not a good enforcement body and because it has no teeth has no ability (or desire at times it seems) to deal with militant dictators. You can't communicate or negotiate with dictators/terrorists/hostage takers and that's all the UN is good at; talking. Giving Sadamn a chance to hold the middle east hostage is more likely IMO to result in a nuclear war than making him impotant now.
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 10-18-2002).]
[b]By the rules of sovereignty, a country has the right to protect its citizens and assets. By the rules of the United Nations one nation must not interfere with the sovereignty of another without cause, and that cause is only self-defense.
It is easy for the world to see the United States as an aggressor, because Iraq has not overtly threatened the United States, and because the legitimacy of the United States? motivation is at question...[/b][/quote]
Presidential agenda and legitimacy aside, I have NO DOUBT in my mind that Saddam/Iraq lended a helping hand to Al Queda and Osama. To me the mear implication of assisting other terrorist in the world (by training, weapons, etc) is an overt act of aggression.
That we got bit in the ass by our own methods is true, but still doesn't get him off the hook.
[quote]Originally posted by Randy:
[b]...I think that your characterization goes too far in the opposite direction.[/b][/quote]
I don't... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] I feel that that the UN is a failed expirement at peace, already. I think the US is also, now more than ever, and getting worse by the minute...
And you're right, too, we have to achieve this as a human race, not as a nationality or dictatorship, or whatever...
I don't really see us getting to that point in the near future without a lot of pain and possible extinction by stupidity...
Tomorrow MSNBC will be airing a special from National Geographic on Nuclear Terrorism. It should be good and informative, even with the BS filtering that has to be used on the modern western media these days...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[b] The US government also supplied Iraq and other extremist governments most of those WMDs they now have. Plus, the fact that they supported the execution of many communist idealists in several other countries during the cold war.[/b][/quote]
I don't believe this is quite correct in the fact that you quoted WMD... It's true that it appears that our past political leaders provided conventional weapons to nations who now hate our ass, but I don't think we ever actually provided chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or info on them. (i could be wrong, God help us if I am...)
That [b][i]OUR[/i][/b] scientists, technicians, machinists, whoemever sold their knowledge indescriminently or with knowledge for a buck is another issue I could believe.
We should remember that the US isn't the only source for these things and their blueprints. Russia, Ukraine, Iran, god knows who else share info and items with the world too for a buck, or for political gain and power.
Then there are those who have the ability to re-invent the wheel without any of our, or some other agent's assistance.
I have no doubt in my mind that Saddam and others are a simmering boil of hatred towards the US and Israel, and others.
We thought the world changed on September 11th? Not really, the US did, and so did it's citizens view of themselves to the rest of the world. Wait till one morning when we wake up to the Sun touching the Earth in one or more of our cities.
The question goes: "How do we get to Israel? By removing or severly injuring the US from the equation..."
Not a pretty picture, and I can't shake it from my mind.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
------------------
Talk is silver, but violence is gold.
[This message has been edited by Messiah (edited 10-19-2002).]
What's important to note here is that the samples were provided by the CDC, not our military. The CDC believed the samples were going to be used to help develop new means of treatment. The CDC was duped.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!