Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 18:15:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > It has everything to do with justness and unjustness. Being a sovereign nation
> > > > means that the nation has the right to make laws governing itself and to enforce
> > > > those laws - furthermore, being a recognized nation means that other nations
> > > > will respect that right.
> > >
> > > So, Germany could slaughter jews at whim in the 20th century because it was a
> > > sovereign nation and you fully support that?
> >
> >
> > There's a debatable issue for you--if Pearl Harbor never happened, would the
> > Americans have 'officially' entered WW2 at all?
>
> See, with that kind of non-sequitor answer you are just encouraging Lenny to
> dodge the question the same way. Nor was the question aimed at countries, it
> was aimed at him as a person. Let me direct it specifically at you: could any
> nation slaughter random inhabitants at whim simply because it was a sovereign
> nation and do you fully support that (i.e. said genocide is not and is never a
> just reason for war)? Let me reiterate: this is not about whether it is a wise
> decision, but only a valid (just) reason for intervention (i.e. war).
>
>
I was just starting a tangent to the current discussion--hence, 'here's a
debatable subject'... It's a "Hmmm.." (strokes chin thoughtfully). That said,
if you want an answer to your specific question--'can sovereign nations
slaughter the people of the particuar nation?', I'd say No. But I don't have
the military might to back that up. It's like the cop without a gun--"Stop that
or I'll say Stop that again!"
Where does that leave us? In international territory. THe bigger question is then, by what right does one sovereign nation dictate what's right or wrong to another sovereign nation? Again, for me, perhaps there should be some sort of Star Trekish 'Prime Directive'--non-interference into 'internal afairs' of sovereign countries. I mean I can rant and rave all I want about how Dubya is a complete idiot, but I really can't do anything about that, nor do I particularly want to--he ain't my leader. I'll jsut let my displeasure be known.
So we have sovereign nation #1 doing something that sovereign nation #2 thinks
is bad--killing citizens, stockpiling WoMD, whatever. Sovereign nation #2 tells
sovereign nation #1 to 'cease and disist that bad stuff!'. By what right does
sovereign nation 2 have to say, yet alone enforce, said stoppage? Military
might? Well, what if sovereign nation #2, which has the military might to
enforce its wishes, but doesn't have moral fortitude to balance that out? Does
sovereign nation #2 have the right to go anywhere in the world, making all other
sovereign nations submit to its will just because it has the military might?
Again, I don't think so.
Maybe a sort of international tribunal, or collection of representatives from
all sovereign nations can be formed that could arbitrate disputes between
individual sovereign nations. An international coalition can say, "Hey
sovereign nation #1, we, as an international community, state that you
massacring your citizens is wrong. If you don't change your erronous ways, we
will send 'peacekeepers' into your country. If you won't allow that, then a)
you're out of the international coalition but more importanly in this new world
when trade, finances, and goods are very important--all trade in and out of your
nation to any other nation is banned until you submit.
Now I can see how some would find fault with this. But it's the best, I
believe, that we can do at this time.
Let the debate ensue...
> >
> > I mean, the Allies didn't know Hitler was murdering the Jews until well into the
> > war, and then it was mostly rumour (iirc), so if Japan didn't strike at America,
> > would the US have used the extermination camps as a reason to send troops to
> > Germany?
>
> It doesn't matter to my question.
And it wasn't directed at your question.
>
> >
> > I dunno--I don't know exact details about WW2 but I wonder if the US would have
> > sent troops if they weren't attacked.
>
> Again, doesn't matter to my question. We made the decision to send troops
> against Germany before Germany attacked us, by the way. And it was Yet Another
> Stupid European War, so I'm not sure why we need to get involved in shooting if
> we didn't have to (this is about a just reason for war, and not about the
> specific actions of anyone or country in the past).
First, Xenophobia--get over it. Churchill took a Just stand without one shot
being fired at the Brits. Long term he did the right thing 'cause Hitler wasn't
going to stop with Poland. And what gave Germany, as a sovereign naiton, the
right to invade Poland in the first place?
Yet another stupid European war? That's the most idiotic thing I've read in a
long time.
>
> >
> > So then all world leaders have this 'sword of Dubya(Damocles)' hanging over
> > their heads--they get to lead their countries daily thanks to the auspices of
> > Georgie-boy? Slip up and down comes the sword...
>
> That's neither here nor there to what I said.
Again, was curious about the concept. Wasn't directed at what you said.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Think of it this way: If i had killed Timothy McVey I would be guilty of
> > > > *murder*, despite McVey kill 150 other people.
> > >
> > > McVey is about to blow up a another building with hundreds of people in it. I,
> > > not authorized by the U.N., U.S., or anybody else, pop him with two to the chest
> > > and one to the head. It would not be murder even though I wasn't directly
> > > threatened.
> >
> >
> > I don't know about that--you'd have difficulty in a court of law.
>
> Not if events are actually what I said they were. Or are you saying you'd do
> otherwise because you feel it would be murder? Quick, he's just connected the
> wires and is about to push the plunger which you had traced back from the
> explosives. You yell, "Stop or I'll shoot!" He doesn't stop. Three, two,
> one...(decision time).
I'd try to shoot him in the arm or leg. Knowing my inexperience with guns, I'd
probably miss anyway. Here-s one--you can go back to when Hitler's 16. Do you
kill him? He hasn't done anything yet.
> > > > > > Are you're saying that Saddam was a jerk and therefore waging war to overthrow
> > > > > > him was just?
> > > > >
> > > > > I merely disputed the assumption that David made that the war was "unjust".
> > > > > I'll also dispute "illegal". I won't dispute "stupid", "unsanctioned",
> > > > > "trumped-up", and any number of terms uncomplimentary to Dubya.
> > > >
> > > > For the reasons mentioned above, the war was illegal.
> > >
> > > Unsanctioned.
> >
> > illegal
>
> Because the U.N. chose not to take action on a specific front does not mean
> action was not justified on another. It provided no "sanction" (approval") for
> the war, but that does not mean that it was "illegal" - you need to establish
> why it is illegal (and if you accept Lenny's line of logic, you also accept that
> it is okay to slaughter jews, which is why I am asking you and Lenny about
> that).
Illegal in the same way that the speed limit along the QEW in Ontario, Canada is
100 km/hour--If a state trooper pulls you over in Florida and gives you a ticket
due to one time in your life you were clocked on the QEW doing 110--that ticket
is illegal. It's not sanctioned by the Ontario Provincial Police, nor is it
enforcable in any court of law.
If the UN has a resolution, and this resolution was broken by a sovereign
country, then it's the UN that has the lawful right to decide what to do about
with the nation breaking UN sanctions. The US, acting against the UN and going
it alone, started an illegal war on Iraq--the US used the defiance of Iraq to
Res 1441 (and many many others as people here have listed in the past) as the
pretext to invade.
>
>
>
> > > The war was not about what Bush was claiming it was about, and even if it was,
> > > his claims certainly weren't accurate - one can make a claim for it being moral
> > > or immoral either way regardless of whether it was wise or not (was it deception
> > > or honest error - entirely ignoring that Saddam was a murdering bastard in the
> > > first place). I am more concerned about the cure being worse than the disease,
> > > myself.
> >
> > And I think by demonstation that Dubya is a 'murdering bastard' who has no
> > remorse for his actions and no concept of responsibility. Moreover, he wants to
> > 'hide' the negative aspects of his 'war on terror' (no photos of caskets, etc)
> > and when pushed about it, he becomes surly, defensive and snippy. As with
> > Cheney. But that's all my humble opinion.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if you are agreeing with my statement that the cure
> is worse than the disease or if you are not understanding that you are agreeing
> with me.
Why wouldn't I agree--in this particular instance, the 'cure' the US
administration came up with is no cure at all. Dubya's idea of 'cure' here is
like fighting cancer by giving the patient HIV.
>
> > > > By "ends" i mean the
> > > > capturing of Saddam, placing him on trial, on creation of a new Iraqi gov't.
> > >
> > > I think it would have been wiser to let someone else besides the U.S. do this,
> > > and I would certainly not have a problem with the morality of his neighbors
> > > doing it, U.N. sanction or no, beyond his neighbors are pretty dubious in their
> > > own way.
> >
> >
> > All true, and yet the US hasn't 'picked a fight' with them. Why Iraq?
>
> Doesn't enter into the matter at hand.
I think it does. Look at all the sovereign nations that the US might actually
take issue eith--look at all the dictators that either cause, or allow, the
willful deaths of citizens around the world. Atrocities on atrocities
throughout the world. Yet, here, now, we're mired in Iraq? Why? I think
that's a rather important question.
>
> > > You are confusing wisdom with justness. They are not the same thing, and your
> > > confusion of such is why you both misunderstand the situation and my views on
> > > it.
> >
> > I think in this particular situation, there is no wisdom--taking out Saddam the
> > way the US went about it wasn't wise from the outset, and I believe most of the
> > world stated such--and certainly justice doesn't enter the picture at all.
>
> I note that you chose to comment on the wisdom aspect when I said that wisdom
> has nothing to do with "justness" and this is about "justness".
Just, Wisdom, neither of these concepts is anywhere near the US/Iraqi situation.
Dubya thinks it was wise to get the 'evil dictator' so that no WoMD can
imminently threaten the US. That's his wisdom. I believe that many people
throughout the world questioned said wisdom.
Justice? Saddam is now on trial. I'm sure someone is going to 'drop the hammer
and dispense some indiscriminate Justice!'. But, like the Seige tank in
StarCraft, when the hammer drops, good guys as well as bad guys will perish in
the fallout.
I'm not a fan of SH. He is a brutal leader who has caused the deaths of
thousands. However, it appears that he kept short leashes on the different
factions in his country--factions which appear to be unleashed now, killing many
more people.
And, of course, this Iraqi war makes a great recruiting poster for terrorist
organizations, thus increasing the threat of terrorism in Iraq and the world in
general. Applause for Dubya's wisdom and justice!
>
>
> > The thing is, I still believe that Bob Dole woudn't have done this, Gore
> > definitly woudn't have invaded Iraq... I think only Dubya has the proper
> > combination--spoiled rich brat who has no concept of ramifications and large...
> > well, everything's big in Texas so I'm told...
>
> Well, Bush IS a big idiot...
>
> -->Bruce<--
That much is certain.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
