Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jul 2004 01:15:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1067 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > 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!"
>
> There's only one part of your answer that matters: "No". When talking about
> something being "just" or "unjust", we are not talking about the power to
> enforce that, and I'm not addressing that at all. So, no, Saddam doesn't have
> the right to slaughter his population, which is my point.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Displeasure noted. Hey, I'll do my part to get rid of Dubya! :-)
>
> >
> > 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?
>
> Doesn't matter - I shed no tears for Saddam and do not feel that tossing him
> from power is unjust in and of itself. Not worth our lives and resources.
> Hardly guarenteed to make us "safer". But Saddam himself? Good riddance, and I
> hope he takes Dubya out the door with him.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> The U.N. Well, sometimes it works, sometimes it works to some degree, and
> sometimes it is utterly useless.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Stupid European War - 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?
>
> What gave them the right to stop him (not that they did)? You are going down an
> avenue that ultimately shoots down the "sovereign nation can do what it wants"
> so I don't mind this line at all.
>
> >
> > Yet another stupid European war? That's the most idiotic thing I've read in a
> > long time.
>
> We've been over this before, so one must wonder about the motivation for
> suddenly pronouncing my statement as "idiotic". It was a stupid war, brought
> about by a previous Stupid European War that the europeans settled in a stupid
> fashion that was destined to bring about Yet Another Stupid War, and lo and
> behold, it happened! StOOpid.
>
> > I'd try to shoot him in the arm or leg.
>
> You got him in the femoral artery. He dies but not until his pushed the
> plunger. Boom! Worst of two worlds.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Nope. I'd teach him to paint better. What was your answer before you read
> mine?
>
> > 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.
>
> What in the world was that about????
Its an example to show that you can't use a country's laws legally in another
country. The UN had the resolution--the UN has to deal with enforcing it. The
US, stating the UN resolution as reason to invade, but at hte same time acting
against what the UN stated, started an illegal war. I thought it was clear.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> "Because the U.N. chose not to take action on a specific front does not mean
> action was not justified on another." Which you promptly ignored with the
> above.
Citing the breaking of a UN resolution and yet not acting on the behalf on the
UN is not justified. I don't ignore anything :)
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Dunno, but I detected hostility was coming - you know, something like hurling
> "idiotic" at me.
Not at you, at the statement. WW2 was started because hitler invaded poland.
The events leading to this may have been 'easily' preventable, but the actual
war was Just.
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> But not for the matter at hand - or are you saying that it is unjust to unseat a
> genocidal tyrant? I keep having to harp on that point because you keep wanting
> to dance around it.
Again, I recall when SH was committing atrocities--Kurds dying and such.
However, I don't recall him making the headlines over the last couple of years.
So if SH was a bad man *then* why wait until now for the invasion? And looking
at the atrocities going on in the world today, why attack Iraq for past
transgressions?
But those are just questions I have.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> If Justness and Unjustness doesn't enter into it, then you agree with my
> challenge to you saying that removing Saddam is inherently unjust.
I'm being swayed by the 'sovereign nation' idea--I personally dislike SH but
does that give legitimacy for another sovereign nation to invade, especially
based on no 'imminent threat' to other countries?
> >
> > 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.
>
> Why are you belaboring a point we agree on?
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Look, go back to what you said and what I responded with originally. You keep
> jumping on your soapbox and dragging this off into other areas.
>
> >
> > 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!
>
>
> You do recall this is a disagreement about "unjustness", not wisdom? We both
> agree the war is stupid.
>
> -->Bruce<--
Just = legitimate or legal or even moral. The legitimacy of this war has been
disproved many times over. Some may disagree on my idea that this is an illegal
war, but Dubya did base this war on the breaking of UN res 1441 (and others).
And morality, eh, we already know the answer to that one.
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
|
|
|
|
