I think you should re-read everything I've written with a cooler less emotion driven head.
First:"To which you answered that no attack on the US has ever threatened your freedom"
I said: No attack has ever helped to ensure my freedom.
Second: I should be clear to you that I believe in a Democratic Palistinan State from what you have read, free from the Isreali opression. I don't agree with the US arms policy with Isreal. But you made an assumption... I also don't just read the US press, I watch the BBC world news, I watch and read Deutsche Welle. I chalenge you to look at my posts in the past about Palistine.
Third: For the last time I'm going to tell you this: Combat is not always the only answer, and education works well often, but when you have a close minded dictator IT WILL NOT.
Fourth: From the begining you have shown me no respect. Read what I have to say, and don't respond with comments like:
"pathetic drivel"
"unique brand of naivety"
"sadly lacking any reasoning"
"you have no concept"
"pure idiocy!"
I have not made one comment insulting you directly, one more from you and I'm done.
Fifth: I support, freedom to vote (representative goverment), freedom to move, and no human ownership of others. So, if you put a monarchy in power, I probably didn't vote for the king or queen. So you didn't help me maintain my three basic human freedoms with your invasion. At any rate, unless you were holding me here, in which case you'd be denying my freedom to move, I'd go to Switzerland...
Sixth: Read again, I never said, you said blind force was okay.
I'm sure you've miss read more, but I'm going out for the evening. Good Day.
I would respond to the 4th point, but your posts render you guilty of all of them, so I find little complaint - I'll confess I misread the bottom of your post, with regards to US freedom, but I still don't know what kind of point you're trying to make... where is it taking your argument?
The same with claiming that I said blind force was 'ok' - where? My whole argument has been that it isn't; it's been about taking responsibility for given actions, and brute force is the most irresponsible that I can think of. Like I said, don't put words in my mouth.
With regards to Palestine - certainly you may challenge me on your posts regarding the situation there. If your position is radically different, and in-line with my own, then my objection in the context of this thread still stands - and if you'd like to me to look elsewhere, then you stand to contradict yourself.
You don't agree with policy - fine, lobby against, since you claim to be so concerned with the issue, and freedom. Sitting on your backside and doing nothing, in terms of the liberal thinking that formed the US and the American constitution relates to consent (check Locke), and gives tacit support. I'm standing up, I'm making the issue known.
Point three - erm... and you're basing this on the history of what? Education comes first - you can't have a cause if there isn't one, and the key remains one of thinking around the problem and enlightening people - if you're acting in consent with people, then force is legitimised - that could be where you're making your mistake regarding my posting on the use of force.
Point 3 - watch more - this:
[quote][b]So is the answer to go into the Middle East and Africa by force and remove all dictators[/b][/quote]
Doesn't sound like it comes from someone with any decent grasp on the subject, regardless of what you claim to see on TV - sadly, I have a degree in this field, and whilst it doesn't automatically mean that what I've said, or reckoned, is correct it does mean that I've, at least, thought it through; and any objection is a serious one.
Point five - I'm glad you do; it's nice and liberal, and draws some fine thinking from the realm of socialism. It's nice that you note the concept of a monarchy being alien to you - the example worked well then, with your suggestion of imposing Westerm governing regimes on areas with no historical precedent for them. I certainly didn't help you maintain your three basic human freedoms, which made my example complete - they're very western concepts, and don't fit all situations in the region we're discussing.
Maybe that's where your confusion was in my "grievance" objection? Remember that the definition of freedom, if we were to have you theoretically 'liberate' a nation, would lie with the local population, not yourself. So, much like the monarchy example, they would have the right to take some action as recourse. So, the complaint that 'blind force' would generate the same still stands; you take the violent course, then expect to see the same back - a la Mogadishu; where the US presence was not welcomed by the majority of the locals, and was seen as a simple military invasion.
Good to hear that you're going out - I'm sure you'll "miss read more" of what I say, as well, so have a nice time whilst you can [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Mr. Bungle while I agree that internal social movements, education and perseverance can change opressive governments over time, it it many cases takes many years for an impact to be felt. Reforms will be slow, and dangerous because dictators will do anything to maintain power. While we wait for the kind of process you advocate, the people will still be forced to live under opresion,, and in cases of genocide by the government millions can die. Both I and Konrad understand that blind force doesn't solve anything, but in certain cases an apropriate amount of force is nessesary to give people a choice.
I will ask you two questions that realate to this.
1. Since you oppose any kind of force to stop dictators, do you also beleive that we should not have done anything in WW2 to remove Hitler, and would you have waited years to educate the Germans, while millions wre being exterminated?
2.How can you acurately measure an entire population's feeling towards western help when a government prevents its people from speaking out, and controls all information and media.
While as I said we cannot simply impose our system on other people, we can safely assume that most people will be firmly against oppresive regimes since the need for personal freedom is the cornerstone of our existance and universal to all humans.
Finaly you still haven't responded to the success of, and the people's reaction in Afganistan. Their hope and acceptance of our help, seems to contradict your argument that fighting opressive regimes takes away people's freedom.
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
A sensible suggestion there, Andy - where did the quote come from?
Now, to respond to some points:
[quote][b]1. Since you oppose any kind of force to stop dictators, do you also beleive that we should not have done anything in WW2 to remove Hitler, and would you have waited years to educate the Germans, while millions wre being exterminated?[/b][/quote]
I've already mentioned self-determination, which would allow the most liberal of states to act morally in defence of another group of people.
[quote][b]2.How can you acurately measure an entire population's feeling towards western help when a government prevents its people from speaking out, and controls all information and media.[/b][/quote]
This is a rather strange objection - take my original complaint, namely that the call as to whether the regime is dictatorial has to lie with the people of that nation themselves, and that you can't judge by your own standards alone, and with no grasp of the situation from having been involved yourself.
So, are you still wanting this one answering? You've taken my rather practical answer to both sides of the argument - your case for involvement, and the theoretical case you can see for no-involvement - to an extreme for which it was not designed.
But, then again, how do you tell the political climate for the likes of Aghanistan and Iraq? Yet the allies knew enough to involve themselves - answer me that, in advocating force, and you answer your own question [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Mind, if you take the tack that they couldn't tell, since it's so hard when the media and information are controlled (like you imply could be difficult for any attemtped information gathering) then it comes back to my objection - why did we get involved?
The answer being the sovereign right of nations, and self-determination - at least you can see those two in the examples we've mentioned previously.
Better yet, this gives us chance to work out how you deal with situations when the people can't speak directly... which would be a more constructive branch of argument [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
The suggestion you give is that one could assume that people are steadfastly against an oppressive regime - but oppressive to whose eyes? Most Islamic states look repressive to me, yet are the prefered option to the religious majorities; hence my suggestion that you need the local opinion of the people of the nation in question. You can't throw yourself in headlong, using our own, western values, to judge a system completely alien to our everyday lives.
As for the Afghanistan issue - a simple question in reply, why did a freedom loving nation, pledged to defend freedom and liberty on the world stage, put an oppressive regime into power?
It's a case in point, of needing to think through motions, and take responsibility - in the case of this example, a motion that came so tragically back to bite the US [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
Mind you, you've pretty much answered why I would be happy to see the Taliban regime out of power - certainly, when a people is oppressed, oppressed directly and not simply in our subjective opinion, then we should have remit to act accordingly (and I would stress [i]accordingly[/i] - there are other means for instituting social change, this side of sending in the cavalry).
That sound fair enough? I think we're getting somewhere with this [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] Mind you, I'm f*cking tired... 4:30am, gah! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
There needs to be a reason to interfere (openly) in the affairs of a foreign nation. Our reason for getting involved in Iraq/Kuwait was ostensibly the defense of our allies. Our reason for the doings in Afghanistan is this war on terror. Our original reason for supporting the Taliban was as a counter to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Hmmm.... Seems to have blown up in our faces, yes?
We have supported, both openly and clandestinely, some of the nastiest governments on the face of the earth. We support the Saudis, who are so horrible with human rights that it makes me sick to think of it. We support China, which is just as bad. Why?
Money.
Businesses can make a hell of a lot of money by manufacturing crap in China. Slave labor is cheaper than paying the unions here, after all. So we bend over for the Chinese.
Let's not forget the oil in Saudi Arabia. As long as we are dependent on that stuff, we'll continue to bend over for the Saudies.
Pick up something at random on your desk. Where was it made? 90% of the time, it was made in China. Even my cordless optical mouse is made in frelling China.
I know one company that decided to market a product in China. Didn't work. Nobody there could afford what they tried to sell. Any guesses as to the product?
Candy. Not expensive candy, either.
They still have the plant there, but everything made in that plant is sold somewhere besides China. The average Chinese citizen is too poor to buy a candy bar once in a while. So where does all that money we pump into that country go?
We have the laws and rights we enjoy for a reason. That reason is to keep the people in power here from doing to us what the Chinese government has done to its own people. We must be vigilant in protecting our freedoms, both from terrorists and our own government.
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
AnlaShok, the Taliban came about, in what, 1996? The Soviet invasion was from 1979-1989 and the USSR effectively dead in 1992.
Also, no regime is comparable to China in the way of human rights abuses. This is a country that surpassed Hitler and Stalin combined. If anything, Hitler was only the most ambitious of tyrants during the twentieth century. The true incarnation of evil for that time period is set in the image of Mao.
Mr. Bungle I don't understand why we are arguing here. If we both agree that in cases of outright and extreme opresion action needs to be taken, then what is the argument.
Your question as to why the people of Afganistan choose the Taliban is easily answerd. They didn't, there was a civil war in Afganistan after the Soviets left, and the group that comprised the Taliban won. Thus they took power and established their radical Islamic law. And even if people had initialy supported them, they have the right to depose them if they change their minds.
While we can say "oh but they should have done it themselves" its very difficult do do that when people can't even feed their families, and have been in war for 20 years.
That is why we as a strong society must help those who can't fight.
As you say its impossible to determine exacly what degree of oposition exists to a regime in a country. That is why I asked the question, to prove you can't. Therefore as you say we must act in cases where the opression is apparent and visible. I don't think it is that difficult to judge other countries even ones with different cultural backrounds, opression is opression no matter where you are from. Any system that removes the individual's rights to self determination is opressive. In addition the U.S has very clear gidelines as to what human rights are, which all memeber nations have agreed on. The fact that those guidelines are not enforced is a different matter, but the fact remains all people have the same basic understanding of freedom.
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
My case is still that it has to be the local population making the distinction as to whether the regime is oppressive, or not, as especially in the context of religious belief systems in the Middle East our own viewpoint is completely alien, and it wouldn't be right for us to make the call as to the validity of the regime to rule.
As for Afghanistan choosing the Taliban - that probably swings the same way as to why they originally 'chose' the Communists; simply that an outside power was feeding them arms, and training them in their use. I don't think it was a case of the Afghanistan people 'choosing' much at all, the decision had already been made for them in a great number of factors - and, as you've already noted, they were quite happy for the Taliban to go.
Still, I threw back the question as to whether you can understand the feelings of a nation - you've come to the conclusion that you can't, so, let's be honest here, who's benefit was the war in Afghanistan for then? I think the freeing of the people there was a nice, beneficial aside, from America's main concern.
Still, it's the argument taken to an extreme - and I said that it doesn't work well in this case, hence the suggestion that you need some surrogate form of the expression of freedom, pre-agreed to - something akin to the UN and its articles, where it's not simply down to the call of a single nation, and its innate bias, but open to a wide forum.
The original call for the opinions of the local population works well in the scale that we were originally discussing - in providing the objection that you can't simply overrule peoples' affairs simply for your own aims, which was part of my whole "take responsibility" argument.
It's the same as many classical thinkers would have suggested - Kant, especially, and those of the liberal tradition. Go to your local library and do a little research, it's well worth the time.
[quote]Originally posted by Mr_Bungle:
[b]The US is the primary source for CO2 output, regardless of the capacity of its forests to 'sink' the CO2. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, but satelite images show that volcanoes put out far higher concentrations than the US. And after volcanoes, it wasn't the US; it was other countries. I don't remember exactly what they were (if you want to look it up yourself go to NASA), but I'd guess it was the eastern european/ 3rd world areas...
Wasn't it China or North Korea that pollutes more then us? Oh wait, it ( [url="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/disagreements/"]http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/disagreements/[/url] ) says that they're expected to overtake everyone in about 15-25 years. 'Course this was written in late 1997.
Anyways, I would've revoked Kyoto the same as Bush. I wouldn't sacrifice peoples' jobs to appease other countries. Besides, treaties are not going to lower carbon emissions. Making the tech that emits them obsolete on the other hand will. Unfortunately that's going to be a slow process.
Oh, those dirty bastard volcanoes! I always knew they had it in for us! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/eek.gif[/img]
Vertigo, it was reported that of the potential Kyoto signatories that the US had the highest output - I'll check the per population figure if I can find the article again, as well - the suggestion was that it wouldn't be 'correct' to include the developing nations in the cuts, given the activities of the industrialised world during its development phase.
The Taliban is the direct descendant of the Mujahedin, which we supported against the Soviet incursions. Nasty people, any way you look at them.
Of course, on the plus side, neither China nor Saudi Arabia have these inconvenient rights to get in the way of hunting down enemies of The State.
The US has 5% of the world's population, but accounts for 25% of the CO2 emissions. Even the current administration has agreed that we are responsible for global warming, but it's too late to do anything about it so we may as well get used to it. I had a link to the articles and reports, but I seem to have misplaced it. I will search more.
Also, free speech is now a thing of the past. People at Ohio State were arrested or removed from the stadium for turning their backs on Bush during his speech. [url="http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=27823&forum=DCForumID35#119"]http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=27823&forum=DCForumID35#119[/url]
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
[This message has been edited by AnlaShok (edited 06-16-2002).]
[quote]Originally posted by Vertigo_1:
[b] Sorry, but satelite images show that volcanoes put out far higher concentrations than the US. And after volcanoes, it wasn't the US; it was other countries. I don't remember exactly what they were (if you want to look it up yourself go to NASA), but I'd guess it was the eastern european/ 3rd world areas...[/b][/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by Mr_Bungle:
[b]Oh, those dirty bastard volcanoes! I always knew they had it in for us![/b][/quote]
Must I always clarify this to you guys? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Carbon Dioxide(CO2) is a by product of nature, exhaling for example, volcanoes, etc...
Carbon Monoxide(CO) is a by product of combustion.
Although Forests can clean both up, the problem is saturation poisoning.
[quote][b]The US has 5% of the world's population, but accounts for 25% of the CO2 emissions. Even the current administration has agreed that we are responsible for global warming, but it's too late to do anything about it so we may as well get used to it. I had a link to the articles and reports, but I seem to have misplaced it. I will search more.[/b][/quote]
That's the figure I got from a friend when I couldn't find the article - he was a percentage off on the population, but hey, you can't have everything [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
I bet they don't even consider volcanoes in the world's population - that's how they dodge their quotas, evil bastards! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
The only debate like this where the combatants come with in a hair of mutual understanding and I barely take part!! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img] [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
BTW, a lot of Afghans interviewed say they miss the Taliban given the crap the Northern Alliance is pulling again. Furthermore, RAWA [url="http://www.rawa.org/apr28-02en.htm"]says[/url] that they need a little help saving the new government from such crap.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 06-18-2002).]
[quote]Originally posted by Faylorn:
[b]
BTW, a lot of Afghans interviewed say they miss the Taliban given the crap the Northern Alliance is pulling again. Furthermore, RAWA [url="http://www.rawa.org/apr28-02en.htm"]says[/url] that they need a little help saving the new government from such crap.
[/b][/quote]
Well in certain areas i'm sure the Northern Alliance forces have done bad things. Thats why the international peacekeeping force needs to remain strong until the Afgan national army is trained and ready. If we had trusted the Northern Alliance to be better than the Taliban, and just left them alone they would have taken power and imposed their own oppresive rule. We must keep all waring factions from imposing only their will on the population. The new government must represent everyone for there to be lasting security in the country.
Haven't read all the posts (most seem to be off the main topic anyway) so if what I say is covered already then just ignore me.
The guy was a US citizen who has been effectively stripped of his rights because they suspect he was in the "pre-planning phase" of building and using a dirty nuke against a US target. Yes, the president does have the power to do this..IN A TIME OF WAR. There has been NO official declaration of war by congress so technicly, as much as anyone says otherwise, we're not a war. The fact that this has happened, and people are condoning it, does not sit well with me, regardless of if he's guilty or not. What they SHOULD be doing is charging him with Treason (an offense I believe still punishable by death). This stripping him of his rights is mearly an excuse to detain him until they figure out either A) what to do with him, or B) what crime he's actually commited.
Secondly, the comments about some of the Hijackers not commiting a crime before they actually hijacked the plane is complete bullshit. Let me give you an example. If you talk to someone about killing someone else, that is called "conspiracy to commit murder" and IS a chargable offence. Which means that, unless someone walked up to the not-yet terrorist, and said "be on this plane at this time" and told them nothing more. And only when the so-called "leader" actually started the ball rolling did they decide to help. Then I might buy your statement about them being innocent until they actually hijacked the plane. But if they so much as talked about it, they are guilty of conspiracy.
Words are not a crime, thoughts are not a crime. Planning to commit a crime, is a crime, according to the law.
Yes the guy may be guilty, but it's place of our court system to decide that. As a US citizen, even if he was going to do what they are accusing him of, that is his right. Again, contrary to what the media and the president want you to believe, we are not currently in a state of active war. Congress has not declared it, and even if the president himself did so (as he is allow to wage war for 90 days prior to congressional approval) those 90 days are over. You decide if what has been done is illegal or not.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
Here's one big, huge ****ing point against [big quotation fingers] "traditional" islamic law:
Inb northern Pakistan, an 18 year old girl was ordered to be gang-raped by a group of men from an upper-class tribe. The decision was made by a hroup of elders to "Uphold the honor" of their tribe because the girl's 11 year old brother got caught walking home from school with the a member of that particular group.
these are the kind of things that just PISS ME OFF [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
It is a difference of cultures and it is...improper to judge them according to our standards. Bear in mind that it is society that dictates what is "acceptable" and what is not. Ours says that those actions are not acceptable, but they do not live in our society, they live in their own, and according to theirs, what they did was entirely acceptable. Ironicly, according to their society, much of what goes on in OUR society is "unacceptable" and would warrant similar punishments and even death if their rules were enforced here. Bear that in mind next time you decide to sit in judgement of another culture.
------------------
Is bad....is bad to open airlock in space... air go out like WOOSH!
I think WHY's message makes this point but just to be sure: in the phrase "traditional" Islamic Law - Islamic is the variable. It's ignorant tribal mentality with some Islam peppered in. Sort of like the warring factions of Northern Ireland are of ignorant tribal mentality with Christianity peppered in.
P.S. Right on Melkor. However, if we take a consensus of the human majority as a point of departure for setting moral guidelines the culprits would soon be wishing a punishment as comparitively lax, in their world view, as that which they put on the girl - in that they'd rather be raped than get [b]it[/b] hacked off with a rusty pen-knife - or so I'm guessing...
My first point: a consensus could bridge the gap of differing moral structure between cultures. My second: the punishments as horrible as the crime, which makes sense: it's a punishment.
However, ask a Texan what punishment has done for him/her lately; criminals just keep acting like criminals regardless of that state's enthusiastic record of lethal resolve. Skip over to Saudi Arabia: last I heard you could catch a beheading a day if you wanted to. That probably won't end any time soon.
Therefore, rhetorical question: is punishment in the pursuit of justice possible given the effects in both cultures?
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 07-10-2002).]
Well, that was kinda my point, hence the quotation fingers, I mean, ye olde islamic law that I've read about seems pretty civilized (considering it was the middle ages), and it seemed more like it had social stability in mind as opposed to this.
I probably got off track, it REALLY bugs me when someone has to suffer under the guise of "Justice".
Faylorn, it does not matter how you feel about their actions. It does not matter how the rest of the world feels about their actions. I personally do not like what was done, but it is THEIR country, not ours. Therefore it is THEIR say, not ours. If, just because you and every single other person in the world, outside of that country, does not like those actions, it does not give you the right to do anything about it. If you seek to go in there and force our laws, our religions and our way of thinking on them, then you are not better than the terrorists that are being hunted down.
------------------
Is bad....is bad to open airlock in space... air go out like WOOSH!
Comments
First:"To which you answered that no attack on the US has ever threatened your freedom"
I said: No attack has ever helped to ensure my freedom.
Second: I should be clear to you that I believe in a Democratic Palistinan State from what you have read, free from the Isreali opression. I don't agree with the US arms policy with Isreal. But you made an assumption... I also don't just read the US press, I watch the BBC world news, I watch and read Deutsche Welle. I chalenge you to look at my posts in the past about Palistine.
Third: For the last time I'm going to tell you this: Combat is not always the only answer, and education works well often, but when you have a close minded dictator IT WILL NOT.
Fourth: From the begining you have shown me no respect. Read what I have to say, and don't respond with comments like:
"pathetic drivel"
"unique brand of naivety"
"sadly lacking any reasoning"
"you have no concept"
"pure idiocy!"
I have not made one comment insulting you directly, one more from you and I'm done.
Fifth: I support, freedom to vote (representative goverment), freedom to move, and no human ownership of others. So, if you put a monarchy in power, I probably didn't vote for the king or queen. So you didn't help me maintain my three basic human freedoms with your invasion. At any rate, unless you were holding me here, in which case you'd be denying my freedom to move, I'd go to Switzerland...
Sixth: Read again, I never said, you said blind force was okay.
I'm sure you've miss read more, but I'm going out for the evening. Good Day.
The same with claiming that I said blind force was 'ok' - where? My whole argument has been that it isn't; it's been about taking responsibility for given actions, and brute force is the most irresponsible that I can think of. Like I said, don't put words in my mouth.
With regards to Palestine - certainly you may challenge me on your posts regarding the situation there. If your position is radically different, and in-line with my own, then my objection in the context of this thread still stands - and if you'd like to me to look elsewhere, then you stand to contradict yourself.
You don't agree with policy - fine, lobby against, since you claim to be so concerned with the issue, and freedom. Sitting on your backside and doing nothing, in terms of the liberal thinking that formed the US and the American constitution relates to consent (check Locke), and gives tacit support. I'm standing up, I'm making the issue known.
Point three - erm... and you're basing this on the history of what? Education comes first - you can't have a cause if there isn't one, and the key remains one of thinking around the problem and enlightening people - if you're acting in consent with people, then force is legitimised - that could be where you're making your mistake regarding my posting on the use of force.
Point 3 - watch more - this:
[quote][b]So is the answer to go into the Middle East and Africa by force and remove all dictators[/b][/quote]
Doesn't sound like it comes from someone with any decent grasp on the subject, regardless of what you claim to see on TV - sadly, I have a degree in this field, and whilst it doesn't automatically mean that what I've said, or reckoned, is correct it does mean that I've, at least, thought it through; and any objection is a serious one.
Point five - I'm glad you do; it's nice and liberal, and draws some fine thinking from the realm of socialism. It's nice that you note the concept of a monarchy being alien to you - the example worked well then, with your suggestion of imposing Westerm governing regimes on areas with no historical precedent for them. I certainly didn't help you maintain your three basic human freedoms, which made my example complete - they're very western concepts, and don't fit all situations in the region we're discussing.
Maybe that's where your confusion was in my "grievance" objection? Remember that the definition of freedom, if we were to have you theoretically 'liberate' a nation, would lie with the local population, not yourself. So, much like the monarchy example, they would have the right to take some action as recourse. So, the complaint that 'blind force' would generate the same still stands; you take the violent course, then expect to see the same back - a la Mogadishu; where the US presence was not welcomed by the majority of the locals, and was seen as a simple military invasion.
Good to hear that you're going out - I'm sure you'll "miss read more" of what I say, as well, so have a nice time whilst you can [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
I will ask you two questions that realate to this.
1. Since you oppose any kind of force to stop dictators, do you also beleive that we should not have done anything in WW2 to remove Hitler, and would you have waited years to educate the Germans, while millions wre being exterminated?
2.How can you acurately measure an entire population's feeling towards western help when a government prevents its people from speaking out, and controls all information and media.
While as I said we cannot simply impose our system on other people, we can safely assume that most people will be firmly against oppresive regimes since the need for personal freedom is the cornerstone of our existance and universal to all humans.
Finaly you still haven't responded to the success of, and the people's reaction in Afganistan. Their hope and acceptance of our help, seems to contradict your argument that fighting opressive regimes takes away people's freedom.
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
Now, to respond to some points:
[quote][b]1. Since you oppose any kind of force to stop dictators, do you also beleive that we should not have done anything in WW2 to remove Hitler, and would you have waited years to educate the Germans, while millions wre being exterminated?[/b][/quote]
I've already mentioned self-determination, which would allow the most liberal of states to act morally in defence of another group of people.
[quote][b]2.How can you acurately measure an entire population's feeling towards western help when a government prevents its people from speaking out, and controls all information and media.[/b][/quote]
This is a rather strange objection - take my original complaint, namely that the call as to whether the regime is dictatorial has to lie with the people of that nation themselves, and that you can't judge by your own standards alone, and with no grasp of the situation from having been involved yourself.
So, are you still wanting this one answering? You've taken my rather practical answer to both sides of the argument - your case for involvement, and the theoretical case you can see for no-involvement - to an extreme for which it was not designed.
But, then again, how do you tell the political climate for the likes of Aghanistan and Iraq? Yet the allies knew enough to involve themselves - answer me that, in advocating force, and you answer your own question [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Mind, if you take the tack that they couldn't tell, since it's so hard when the media and information are controlled (like you imply could be difficult for any attemtped information gathering) then it comes back to my objection - why did we get involved?
The answer being the sovereign right of nations, and self-determination - at least you can see those two in the examples we've mentioned previously.
Better yet, this gives us chance to work out how you deal with situations when the people can't speak directly... which would be a more constructive branch of argument [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
The suggestion you give is that one could assume that people are steadfastly against an oppressive regime - but oppressive to whose eyes? Most Islamic states look repressive to me, yet are the prefered option to the religious majorities; hence my suggestion that you need the local opinion of the people of the nation in question. You can't throw yourself in headlong, using our own, western values, to judge a system completely alien to our everyday lives.
As for the Afghanistan issue - a simple question in reply, why did a freedom loving nation, pledged to defend freedom and liberty on the world stage, put an oppressive regime into power?
It's a case in point, of needing to think through motions, and take responsibility - in the case of this example, a motion that came so tragically back to bite the US [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
Mind you, you've pretty much answered why I would be happy to see the Taliban regime out of power - certainly, when a people is oppressed, oppressed directly and not simply in our subjective opinion, then we should have remit to act accordingly (and I would stress [i]accordingly[/i] - there are other means for instituting social change, this side of sending in the cavalry).
That sound fair enough? I think we're getting somewhere with this [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] Mind you, I'm f*cking tired... 4:30am, gah! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
We have supported, both openly and clandestinely, some of the nastiest governments on the face of the earth. We support the Saudis, who are so horrible with human rights that it makes me sick to think of it. We support China, which is just as bad. Why?
Money.
Businesses can make a hell of a lot of money by manufacturing crap in China. Slave labor is cheaper than paying the unions here, after all. So we bend over for the Chinese.
Let's not forget the oil in Saudi Arabia. As long as we are dependent on that stuff, we'll continue to bend over for the Saudies.
Pick up something at random on your desk. Where was it made? 90% of the time, it was made in China. Even my cordless optical mouse is made in frelling China.
I know one company that decided to market a product in China. Didn't work. Nobody there could afford what they tried to sell. Any guesses as to the product?
Candy. Not expensive candy, either.
They still have the plant there, but everything made in that plant is sold somewhere besides China. The average Chinese citizen is too poor to buy a candy bar once in a while. So where does all that money we pump into that country go?
We have the laws and rights we enjoy for a reason. That reason is to keep the people in power here from doing to us what the Chinese government has done to its own people. We must be vigilant in protecting our freedoms, both from terrorists and our own government.
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
Also, no regime is comparable to China in the way of human rights abuses. This is a country that surpassed Hitler and Stalin combined. If anything, Hitler was only the most ambitious of tyrants during the twentieth century. The true incarnation of evil for that time period is set in the image of Mao.
Your question as to why the people of Afganistan choose the Taliban is easily answerd. They didn't, there was a civil war in Afganistan after the Soviets left, and the group that comprised the Taliban won. Thus they took power and established their radical Islamic law. And even if people had initialy supported them, they have the right to depose them if they change their minds.
While we can say "oh but they should have done it themselves" its very difficult do do that when people can't even feed their families, and have been in war for 20 years.
That is why we as a strong society must help those who can't fight.
As you say its impossible to determine exacly what degree of oposition exists to a regime in a country. That is why I asked the question, to prove you can't. Therefore as you say we must act in cases where the opression is apparent and visible. I don't think it is that difficult to judge other countries even ones with different cultural backrounds, opression is opression no matter where you are from. Any system that removes the individual's rights to self determination is opressive. In addition the U.S has very clear gidelines as to what human rights are, which all memeber nations have agreed on. The fact that those guidelines are not enforced is a different matter, but the fact remains all people have the same basic understanding of freedom.
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
As for Afghanistan choosing the Taliban - that probably swings the same way as to why they originally 'chose' the Communists; simply that an outside power was feeding them arms, and training them in their use. I don't think it was a case of the Afghanistan people 'choosing' much at all, the decision had already been made for them in a great number of factors - and, as you've already noted, they were quite happy for the Taliban to go.
Still, I threw back the question as to whether you can understand the feelings of a nation - you've come to the conclusion that you can't, so, let's be honest here, who's benefit was the war in Afghanistan for then? I think the freeing of the people there was a nice, beneficial aside, from America's main concern.
Still, it's the argument taken to an extreme - and I said that it doesn't work well in this case, hence the suggestion that you need some surrogate form of the expression of freedom, pre-agreed to - something akin to the UN and its articles, where it's not simply down to the call of a single nation, and its innate bias, but open to a wide forum.
The original call for the opinions of the local population works well in the scale that we were originally discussing - in providing the objection that you can't simply overrule peoples' affairs simply for your own aims, which was part of my whole "take responsibility" argument.
It's the same as many classical thinkers would have suggested - Kant, especially, and those of the liberal tradition. Go to your local library and do a little research, it's well worth the time.
[b]The US is the primary source for CO2 output, regardless of the capacity of its forests to 'sink' the CO2. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, but satelite images show that volcanoes put out far higher concentrations than the US. And after volcanoes, it wasn't the US; it was other countries. I don't remember exactly what they were (if you want to look it up yourself go to NASA), but I'd guess it was the eastern european/ 3rd world areas...
Anyways, I would've revoked Kyoto the same as Bush. I wouldn't sacrifice peoples' jobs to appease other countries. Besides, treaties are not going to lower carbon emissions. Making the tech that emits them obsolete on the other hand will. Unfortunately that's going to be a slow process.
Vertigo, it was reported that of the potential Kyoto signatories that the US had the highest output - I'll check the per population figure if I can find the article again, as well - the suggestion was that it wouldn't be 'correct' to include the developing nations in the cuts, given the activities of the industrialised world during its development phase.
Of course, on the plus side, neither China nor Saudi Arabia have these inconvenient rights to get in the way of hunting down enemies of The State.
The US has 5% of the world's population, but accounts for 25% of the CO2 emissions. Even the current administration has agreed that we are responsible for global warming, but it's too late to do anything about it so we may as well get used to it. I had a link to the articles and reports, but I seem to have misplaced it. I will search more.
Also, free speech is now a thing of the past. People at Ohio State were arrested or removed from the stadium for turning their backs on Bush during his speech. [url="http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=27823&forum=DCForumID35#119"]http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=27823&forum=DCForumID35#119[/url]
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
[This message has been edited by AnlaShok (edited 06-16-2002).]
[b] Sorry, but satelite images show that volcanoes put out far higher concentrations than the US. And after volcanoes, it wasn't the US; it was other countries. I don't remember exactly what they were (if you want to look it up yourself go to NASA), but I'd guess it was the eastern european/ 3rd world areas...[/b][/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by Mr_Bungle:
[b]Oh, those dirty bastard volcanoes! I always knew they had it in for us![/b][/quote]
Must I always clarify this to you guys? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Carbon Dioxide(CO2) is a by product of nature, exhaling for example, volcanoes, etc...
Carbon Monoxide(CO) is a by product of combustion.
Although Forests can clean both up, the problem is saturation poisoning.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by JackN (edited 06-16-2002).]
That's the figure I got from a friend when I couldn't find the article - he was a percentage off on the population, but hey, you can't have everything [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
I bet they don't even consider volcanoes in the world's population - that's how they dodge their quotas, evil bastards! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
BTW, a lot of Afghans interviewed say they miss the Taliban given the crap the Northern Alliance is pulling again. Furthermore, RAWA [url="http://www.rawa.org/apr28-02en.htm"]says[/url] that they need a little help saving the new government from such crap.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 06-18-2002).]
[b]
BTW, a lot of Afghans interviewed say they miss the Taliban given the crap the Northern Alliance is pulling again. Furthermore, RAWA [url="http://www.rawa.org/apr28-02en.htm"]says[/url] that they need a little help saving the new government from such crap.
[/b][/quote]
Well in certain areas i'm sure the Northern Alliance forces have done bad things. Thats why the international peacekeeping force needs to remain strong until the Afgan national army is trained and ready. If we had trusted the Northern Alliance to be better than the Taliban, and just left them alone they would have taken power and imposed their own oppresive rule. We must keep all waring factions from imposing only their will on the population. The new government must represent everyone for there to be lasting security in the country.
The guy was a US citizen who has been effectively stripped of his rights because they suspect he was in the "pre-planning phase" of building and using a dirty nuke against a US target. Yes, the president does have the power to do this..IN A TIME OF WAR. There has been NO official declaration of war by congress so technicly, as much as anyone says otherwise, we're not a war. The fact that this has happened, and people are condoning it, does not sit well with me, regardless of if he's guilty or not. What they SHOULD be doing is charging him with Treason (an offense I believe still punishable by death). This stripping him of his rights is mearly an excuse to detain him until they figure out either A) what to do with him, or B) what crime he's actually commited.
Secondly, the comments about some of the Hijackers not commiting a crime before they actually hijacked the plane is complete bullshit. Let me give you an example. If you talk to someone about killing someone else, that is called "conspiracy to commit murder" and IS a chargable offence. Which means that, unless someone walked up to the not-yet terrorist, and said "be on this plane at this time" and told them nothing more. And only when the so-called "leader" actually started the ball rolling did they decide to help. Then I might buy your statement about them being innocent until they actually hijacked the plane. But if they so much as talked about it, they are guilty of conspiracy.
Words are not a crime, thoughts are not a crime. Planning to commit a crime, is a crime, according to the law.
Yes the guy may be guilty, but it's place of our court system to decide that. As a US citizen, even if he was going to do what they are accusing him of, that is his right. Again, contrary to what the media and the president want you to believe, we are not currently in a state of active war. Congress has not declared it, and even if the president himself did so (as he is allow to wage war for 90 days prior to congressional approval) those 90 days are over. You decide if what has been done is illegal or not.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
Here's one big, huge ****ing point against [big quotation fingers] "traditional" islamic law:
Inb northern Pakistan, an 18 year old girl was ordered to be gang-raped by a group of men from an upper-class tribe. The decision was made by a hroup of elders to "Uphold the honor" of their tribe because the girl's 11 year old brother got caught walking home from school with the a member of that particular group.
these are the kind of things that just PISS ME OFF [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
------------------
Is bad....is bad to open airlock in space... air go out like WOOSH!
P.S. Right on Melkor. However, if we take a consensus of the human majority as a point of departure for setting moral guidelines the culprits would soon be wishing a punishment as comparitively lax, in their world view, as that which they put on the girl - in that they'd rather be raped than get [b]it[/b] hacked off with a rusty pen-knife - or so I'm guessing...
My first point: a consensus could bridge the gap of differing moral structure between cultures. My second: the punishments as horrible as the crime, which makes sense: it's a punishment.
However, ask a Texan what punishment has done for him/her lately; criminals just keep acting like criminals regardless of that state's enthusiastic record of lethal resolve. Skip over to Saudi Arabia: last I heard you could catch a beheading a day if you wanted to. That probably won't end any time soon.
Therefore, rhetorical question: is punishment in the pursuit of justice possible given the effects in both cultures?
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 07-10-2002).]
I probably got off track, it REALLY bugs me when someone has to suffer under the guise of "Justice".
(Must be the paladin in me, DAMN YOU BIOWARE !)
------------------
Is bad....is bad to open airlock in space... air go out like WOOSH!