Exone... whilst I respect certain points you make, there's a good deal of naivety in your post.
With regards to the Middle East, there's a difference between trying to support the stability of the region, and actually trying to manipulate the politics of the area to your own benefit - a nicely ironic case being the CIA support of the Taliban in coming to power.
So, if a radical Islamic movement came to power, that was hostile to the west, you could see the entire area explode? Quite amusing, that we now see a double-take in your policy with regards to this - a la Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which again leads me to the point that I made earlier - take responsibility for your actions!
Now, on the Israeli issue - yes, Europe supported the creation of the Israeli nation. The basic principle of self-determination support it's formation, and no one can deny the right of the Jewish people to a homeland; and with the spectre of the holocaust still lingering over most of Western Europe, it was the decision at the forefront of European political conscience. However, you have failed to notice the withdrawal of support for Israel when it become, for all intents and purposes, an apartheid state, of the utmost racial intolerance. Should it come as any surprise that the 'Arabs' (you know, they're not that generic - read the history of the area) were not massively keen on their new neighbour, who was systematically not only expanding their borders into 'Arab' territory, but also advocating the treatment of 'Arabs' as, effectively, subhumans.
That's the harsh reality of it - we won't support Israel whilst it remains racist, and whilst it continues to illegally occupy 'Arab' land; as noted by two UN declarations. So, why should the US, defender of freedom on the global scene, continue to support a state that is the anti-thesis of all it could surely stand for, against the protest of the United Nations... ?
Is there a good answer to this one?
Ah, and now for my favourite - European ambivalence to the US. You've, again, failed to address my complaint - you say we operate under similar capitalistic systems; which, fair enough, we do. The sad thing being that we don't sanction you when the competition proves too much - you can't even play by the rules of the world you claim to have helped create. Still, we should keep our mouths shut when our ally decides to sell us short when it suits them.
No.
Hence the apathetic response to Powell's visit; the French were suitably bored to tears, and rightly so - a visiting foreign diplomat comes to chastise us for complaining when the US fobs off our concerns. It came as no surprise to find America's finest politician ridiculed in the press.
Your argument wanders off then... so I'm not sure if there's any points worth coming back on; though I would contend that Europe is in no way culpable for any of the actions of the US - though we may well be a target by affiliation.
[quote][b]I think the reason Europe is trying to stop the U.S from attacking Iraq is because they are afraid the ensuing conflict could spill over and affect Europeans.[/b][/quote]
Erm... we went into one war, and I don't think you have any reason to call our integrity into question. The simple fact is that public opinion is more concerned with the thousands who've died as a result of the sanctions, rather than any paranoia about Iraq. The whole situation could have been dealt with a lot more succinctly, but now you have Bush rambling on about taking Iraq out. Nice. You've pushed the people of Iraq to the wall, and let them see the devastating effects of your persistent bombing and crippling sanctions... and you wonder why they resist?
Oh, and the Taliban... well, you put them into power, so I think you should be addressing the questions to yourself. You can't force your views on people - that's a perfect argument for freedom; yet you installed a radical regime that inspired resent at the time.
I've also noted that you seem to confuse Islam with some oppressive regime - I suggest you should read a little further. Go away and have a nice hard think about what caused such feelings of resentment. That's what my original post was encouraging, and that's what I'd advocate this time. There's the saying that there's no smoke without fire, and regardless of whether the US' detractors really care about the wider issues, there's something more than petty jealousy behind their complaints - and you falsely flatter yourself if that's all the substance you believe them to have.
EXone: recommended: a [url="http://www.zmag.org"]site[/url] and a book called the 'Chomsky Reader'.
Mr_Bungle: You took the words out of my mouth but I'd caution your use of "you". U.S. power structure and the U.S. majority are distinctly separate. While the naivite of this majority will deter acceptance of this view, the deterence shouldn't apply to you.
The sheep are evenly spread throughout the inhabited Earth.
------------------
[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 06-12-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 06-12-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 06-12-2002).]
Ah, I was hoping you'd show up again Faylorn - the link in your sig is priceless [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
With regards to the use of the term "you", I was merely playing on the us/them theme - I agree that there remains a distinction between the opinions of the people of the United States, and the opinions and principles of the governing institutions; though there does remain one angle in which the distinction is reduced, somewhat.
Have you read the 'Two Treatise of Government', by Locke? Locke was one of the principal thinkers of modern liberalism, whose ideas were incorporated into the creation of not only the American concept of the American nation, but the constitution as well.
From there, take a look at his theory of consent - admittedly, it's very open to criticism, but concepts such as tacit consent, where you effectively consent to the actions of the government by your very willingness to live under such a government, does narrow the difference. For Locke, you automatically consent, tacitly - or expressly - unless you actively voice dissent.
That's the tack that I normally take when people say "well, there's a difference..." - there may well be, but unless you make it clear with your actions, then the thinking which helped create your nation simply leaves you as another willing participant in the actions of a government accepted by the citizen body.
[This message has been edited by Mr_Bungle (edited 06-12-2002).]
samuelk: I fail to understand what you mean by that. I trust the government's actions, and not its words, to reveal its intent while the aforementioned "sheep" do the opposite. All are equal in their output of trust but different in the direction to which they cast it.
------------------
[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 06-12-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 06-12-2002).]
The way this has been handled is a very scary look into the future of America. I would much rather live with some fear of terrorist attacks than to allow my government officials the power to cancel a "Citizens" rights.
Two points already expressed are:
1. The complete bypass of his rights to trial and pressumed innocence, etc.
2. The fact that he was detained and arrested before the fact.
What is this? Minority Report or something?
Sure the system sucks a lot, but it's the best and only thing we have to keep us civilized.
I look ahead with morbid fear of the day the president and his croneys will be able to seize your assets, and cancel your citizenship just because you disagree with him and spoke publically about it.
Mr_Bungle: Heh, thanks for the welcome [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] and I'll see if I can find that treatise. As for the distinction, I like it because people cling to their identity and are resentful to reproach...
------------------
[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 06-12-2002).]
[quote]Originally posted by Mr_Bungle:
[b]Why are your forces in the middle east? Why are you supporting Israel - bad policy examples; the US isn't as altruistic as you might like to think.
I never claimed it was altruistic, I actualy am a hard core realist on the international scean, I believe while Hans Morgenthau didnt get it right, he's disturbingly acurate.
[QUOTE][B]
The comment on working with the world, was primarily the suggestion that America drops it's swagger on the world stage - your arrogance has cost you before, and is continuing to cost you. Listen to the greivances, don't simply brush them aside as the mumblings of some second-rate power. If you can't have the decency to do that, then why should we give you any respect? Colin Powell hit it on the head when he criticised Europe for it's negative stance on America - but why should we give you any respect?
[/b][/quote]
Why do you think we should care? Europe trys to claim its own "impartiality" when its involved in its own power politics, Italy is involved in the Eritrean mess up to its elbows but nobody talks about it (if you say they arent, I would like to point out that alot of money flows from Italy into Eritrea.
And frankly its also not just the US, France has forces in Djbuti, and the UK has of troops in Oman, while Italy has agreements to supply ships out of Eritrea last I checked, so European forces are just litteraly over the horizon from the middle east.
[quote][b]
And this is Europe - your closest ally, starting to lose it's patience. You're playing games with the world - you won't operate fairly on the markets; throw your sanctions around; meddle in the affairs of other nations; throw your UN voting block around like, somehow, you should be entitled to be outside of the boundaries placed on the rest of us; you play your stupid power games, throwing Kyoto down the drain simply to ease over your own vested interests...
... you know, the list goes on and on - and they're all honest grievances.
[/b][/quote]
Throw our weight around in the markets? considering EU has embargo's on a multitude of US goods, PRIOR to the steel tarif? considerint the Eurobus consortium is trying to drive Boeing out of the buisness by offering generous no interest loans coming from the French government? At least the US government only offers no interest loans for military goods. (which the EU does also)Frankly the EU wasnt playing fair ball either, and thats why we imposed the steel tarifs, and there are ALOT of subsides by the EU governments also, so you cant point fingers there.
As for the US maintaining all these regiems, the French played a instrumental role in getting Sadam into power (guess who his first arms suppliers were, in fact sadam bought more french weaponry then he ever bought american, we actualy sold him very little) The UK and France also have roles in sustaining the by and large hated King of Saudi arabia, and in general, and the rise of the Taliban occured with enthusiatic British support (the english intelligence agencies are just more quiet about their involvment) considering it was formaly a psudo english colony)
As for the US veto, we still are behind the Russians in using it, and we are not terribly ahead of the UK or France, the only nation which historicly has sparing used it is china.
And Kyoto was a joke, it still hasnt been ratified (yes signed, but it doesnt matter till its ratified) by most of europe, and there were wonderfull things in there like all the rest of the world could declare its forests as CO2 sinks to reduce its estimated CO2 production, where as the US was forbiden from doing the same. Funny the state I live in has more forests then about half the signatories to the Kyoto accords. Kyoto was a horribly unfair agreement that the world was trying to ram through the throats of americans
And the damn science for global warming STILL isnt there, the honest truth is we dont know if the global warming is unusual, there is strong evidence to indicate that the earth is just returing to its average temperature (which is quite warm) since we are actualy on a geological time scale damn close to the end of the last ice age (10,000) and it was an unusual ice age at that, lasting a tenth as long as they normaly do, heck Ive seen some scientific arguments that we are just in a localized hi spike before temperatures plummet again.
and lastly the middle east could care less about Kyoto.
[quote][b]
So, you can imagine why the fanatics of the Islamic world call America the 'satanic power' - to them you are. Blind hatred is born from honest complaint, and your policies have been more than enough to generate complaint.
Oh, you've actually given me a good example of the attitude that gets the world's back up - "and sharia law isnt the answer" - is that your call to make? You can't force your views on people.
[/b][/quote]
But you can? isnt that what your trying to do dicate american policy?
I find it very easy to say what I said, the problem with the islamic nations is not that they need to toughen their religious laws, its that they need to demand accountability for their own policies.
Whats currently occuring is that policy makers in islamic countries are incouring their religious extremists in order to cover up for fiscal mismanegment and general crooked government. That is the pressing problem that they need to address
Exone, I see you're starting to come around to my point of view - you've dropped into the realm of "we're bad, but you're just as bad!" arguing... a first step towards admitting that perhaps the US hasn't been as considerate in it's actions as some might have us believe.
The only query I have is, if you're a "hardcore realist", why do you still seek to find excuses for the current trend of negativity with regards to the US and it's actions?
Still, whilst we're here, I might as well come back on some of your points. The tarifs and sanctions - certainly, you've already admitted that we're working within a capitalist system; why should it be so surprising that the knife is being turned in your hand? I'm very much in favour of the strengthening of the economy of the EU, as a whole; my grievance is that the US is much more active in producing a bias towards its own services and industry.
Foreign regimes - certainly the UK and France have been very active with regards to their arms sales, but less so in trying to exert an influence on the politics of the region. When they have they have primarily followed an American lead, such as the use of UK forces in the establishment of the Taliban regime, at the behest of the US forces already concerned with the operation.
That, for me, is the critical difference - we've been succinct, and to the point. We haven't pushed our own issues too far, such as I would say the US, possibly, has. Mind you, I've never argued any differently, but the primary catalyst for recent troubles has been the effect of long-term US policy in the Middle East.
[quote][b]Kyoto was a joke[/b][/quote]
Yes, it certainly was - and the sacrifice of concern for the global ecosystem simply to satisfy US domestic energy policies is despicable. The US is the primary source for CO2 output, regardless of the capacity of its forests to 'sink' the CO2. The simple fact being that the disposition of US industry, and forestry reserves, doesn't aid for the sinking of any dramatic degree of this output. As such the US threw out an agreement that would have been the foundation stone of a much more concerted global policy on the protection of the ecosystem - you're quite right it was a joke; but you didn't see anyone laughing outside of the US.
Ice age evidence can neither say 'yay' or 'nay', but it would be foolish to continue to say "wait and see" - I've had the pleasure of writing numerous case studies on the subject, and I know the arguments on both sides are contentious. The simple fact is that the ecosystem continues to be damaged, and a step to counter this global threat was discarded, out of hand, by the US - despite relative contentment with the plans from the rest of heavily industrialised, and industrialising, nations.
Your last point, with regards to accountability, would fit in well here - just where is the US' accountability? I would have thought it lay with the US people, but it seems you're only getting half the story, and if it doesn't have the stars and stripes on it then it must be wrong.
Also, your points about the Middle East not caring for Kyoto, and my trying to dictate US policy - what are you talking about? Do [i]you[/i] even know?
No one's trying to dictate US policy - though I can think of a lot of people who would like to! - I'm just trying to reason that there needs to be some degree of responsibility, and not "well, you're just as bad"; that makes your actions any more 'right'? And a degree of accountability.
So, rather than have this "war on terrorism", to further the division, why not try and address the issues that led to this problem, and kick the stool out from beneath the 'fanatics'?
Thanks but I didn´t write the last post. Although he did make good points.
I wrote that both Europe and the U.S have been involved in shaping the destiny of the 3rd world. We´ve both had hands in manipulating countries for our own benifit. The reason why the U.S has done more, and done things more visbly is because its bigger, and as a superpower is always under the spot lite. I firmly call for a change in the way things are done, and see no reason for us to argue. What I think is ridiculous is that Europeans only blame the U.S and then refuse to admit their compliance with our policies. That is hipocracy in my opinion and has to stop.
I have not hid or downplayed what the U.S has done, I only explained why those things occured. I admit my countries involvement, now you admit yours.
As for my remark about Islam, I never equated the Muslim religion with tyranny or opresion. If you look back I stated that radical Islam is the evil, just as radical Christianity was durring the middle ages.
I oppose anyone who would use the name of God as justification for evil.
So, rather than have this "war on terrorism", to further the division, why not try and address the issues that led to this problem, and kick the stool out from beneath the 'fanatics'?
[/b][/quote]
I fully support doing that, we must remove the reasons that terrorist use to justify killing. But I also think that reagardless of what we did to put people like Saddam in power, right now, today we must remove him. Part of fixing our errors is to once and for all stop tolerating dictators and opressive regimes. This will not occur with sanctions or negotiations, only force will fix that problem. We corrected our mistake with the Taliban, now lets correct our mistake with Saddam.
------------------
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...."
[This message has been edited by TheEXone (edited 06-13-2002).]
Wish we could. If you remember during the Gulf action we couldn't go all the way to Baghdad with Nato and the UN because the policy thinkers on all sides of the drink didn’t think that the “Peace Love and Weed” types would care for the images of bloody broken bodies in the streets that were starting to come back. It’s to bad President Bush Number One didn’t listen to General Norman Schwarzkopf at the time and go all the way with or without our allies. Obviously the European policy makers don’t have the stomach to do anything right now either.
I don’t know what the perfect answer is. I don’t think there is one. I do know that the last time the United States went for an isolationist mentality, which many US disgruntled Europeans seem to be calling for, things were fine domestically but didn’t go so well abroad. Churchill had to beg us to get off our butts, and even then we were slow to move to stop a dictatorial tyrant.
So is the answer to go into the Middle East and Africa by force and remove all dictators, establish Constitutions fashioned around the US, Swiss, or other one (with an emphasis on women’s rights) and enforce free voting for at least a generation? I think maybe. Am I personally willing to spill my blood for the freedom of my fellow man? Yes. The problem is to many of you are not. Right now in Kuwait the people are voting in more power for the Islamic Parties. I don’t have a problem with that as long as the people continue to have freedom to vote and to leave the country if they don’t like the way things are going. There is no denying that there is oppression in the world.
Freedom is the ultimate Human Right with out question or argument. What are you doing to ensure your fellow mans freedom?
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 06-13-2002).]
That's the most pathetic drivel I've ever heard, Konrad...
It's a combination of that unique brand of naivety that they seem to sell on pay-per-view, and the odd gem of real wisdom - but, on the whole, it's mismatched and taking the discussion nowhere.
Your apportioning of blame for the failure to 'finish the job' in Iraq is sadly lacking any reasoning - the simple fact was that to go further would have achieved no aim, other than the antagonisation of the region. Allied action was aimed around the freeing of the, then, invaded Kuwait.
You might have noted that tension sky rocketed in the region - Schwarzkopf, whilst a good military leader, if he'd correct in your assertion had a limited grasp on the political realities of the situation. Sure, the US could have finished the job - but only at the cost of alienating the Arab allies whose goodwill they needed for the realistic accomplishment of their mission in Kuwait.
It's not a case of not having the stomach - it's a case of having the sense to be practical, and realistic, with regards to situations. This is something you have no grasp of - you should plow into the middle east and 'enforce free voting'?
So, you're going to invade these sovereign nations to install your own belief/political systems (by implication) - and you're defending [i]freedom[/i]?
You're having a laugh, more like - like I said, it's not your call to say the constitutions of those nations don't work, and that you know any better; that's part of their being sovereign, and if you can't respect that, then why should they respect you?
The simple fact is, they wouldn't - hatred begets hatred, and a pig ignorant foreign policy like the one you're advocating is the right way to go about furthering anti-US sentiments within the region.
The simple fact is, that if people don't like the way certain regimes are running, then they're generally free to make their move - except if you're Palestinian or Iraqi, it would seem, in which case you're stuck where you are [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
I've had ten pints, and your argument is tosh - my objection still stands, that the US has been irresponsible in its foreign policy, and you're just serving to underline that fact. So, back to my suggestion - take the hint, and take the responsibility for your actions.
[This message has been edited by Mr_Bungle (edited 06-13-2002).]
Regarding Mr. Padilla/Al Mujahir being an American citizen--
This guy was (allegedly) carrying plans to build a bomb that would spread radiation over a wide area. Presumably, this was to be used on an American city, or he wouldn't have been coming into the US. Personally, while I admit that I'm slightly troubled by the end-run around what's left of the US legal system, I also have to admit that IMHO this guy reneged on his membership dues as an American a LONG time ago, right about the time that he (allegedly) started planning to build the next best thing to a neutron bomb with the intent of making a whole lot of his "fellow citizens" glow in the dark.
Apparently a lot of the hysteria around this man is simply that - blowm into a nice media circus.
I was reading an article about some attempted damage control on the situation; the suggestion being that he was planning activities against the state, but maybe not on the scale of taking a whole city with him.
Either way, I'm curious - if he's out of line, he's out of line, and should be treated as such.
The last time we went extreme isolationist, things were NOT going fine. Did your classes not teach you about the Great Depression?
Yeesh.
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
The bomb this man might have been planning, was not a neutron bomb, it was a "dirty bomb" not able to unleash a radioactive chain reaction. Just to get that right.
If a man is found with such plans, why not just bring him to court? Look at possible evidence, and then put him in jail if he is found to be guilty. There is simply *no valid reason* to take him (or anyone else) his civil rights.
It is the *core terrorist idea* to invoke fear in people. If you act out of fear, this fear will be used to manipulate you.
One should never raise fences against one's fears, or one will be imprisoned behind those fences one day.
The US society is really going down a dark path, and with its economic and military power it pulls the whole world with it. If European governments follow this path (and they do: In Germany, in the last months have more civil rights been slashed than in whole decades before) they are as well to be hold responsible.
When I said that you will have to draw the line, I did mean you as *citizens*. Of course, that holds for the people of European or other countries.
[EDIT] For more background information: [url="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/bomb-j12.shtml"]http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/bomb-j12.shtml[/url] [/EDIT]
------------------
We are one. No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the world, no matter the star. .. We are one.
No matter the pain, no matter the darkness, no matter the loss, no matter the fear. .. We are one.
- Alliance Preamble to the Declaration of Principles, The Paragon of Animals
Webmaster [url="http://www.Sprungtor.de"]www.Sprungtor.de[/url]
[This message has been edited by Language of Hope (edited 06-14-2002).]
While I am troubled at whats going on with this guy, and other measures that are causing debate. We are still a long way from loosing everything. Also I think that in the end if our governments went too far, people would rise up and fight.
Konrad I completly agree with you, in cases where you can't negociate with dictators we have to help remove them. Mr. bungle while a single drive to eliminate opression might result in a huge conflict, if thing were done over time positive results could occur.
No one is advocating we invade countries that choose a particular system, what we should do is fight when the people of a country demand it. The people of Iraq rose up twice in the last decade to oppose Iraq, and we did nothing.
Sovereignty is often used by governments to excuse their behavior, the mentality that its not our right to interfere in other countries is like saying a man who sees a woman geting abused by her husband should do nothing. Yes people have the right to choose their government, but they also have the right to change their government if they don't like what it ends up doing. You say that removing oppresive regimes by force would make people hate us more, I strongly disagree. Look at Afganistan, when the Taliban were topled people thanked the U.S, they welcomed U.S troops in the street. Why because we helped them win back their freedom.
The reason why many hate the U.S is because in the past we have supported Dictators for our own interests, and we have supported opressive regimes to keep economic control of areas. Its time we stop that, and work to make sure everyone of us has freedom, not just the ones with the luxury of living in the west. I don't belive that the fight of people 1000 miles way is not my fight, and I shouldn't get involved, I beleive that it is my fight because those people are my people,they are not some different race or group, to me they are humans just like me and they want freedom just like me.
You may call me naive, or gung-ho, but thats what I beleive. While I don't think leaders in any country will do what I propose, I do think they should.
[This message has been edited by TheEXone (edited 06-14-2002).]
Don't confuse me with being anti-reformist - I'm quite open about my left-wing sympathies, and if I'm offering an opinion, that's the platform I'll argue from.
However, I was simly taking the realistic tack - my personal belief has always been progress for education; but, in order to learn, you have to have a people willing to learn. That much is a given, but isn't something that many in the the US government are willing to recognise - that there might be debate, some unwillingness, and possibly further avenues for progress.
Islam isn't totally repressive, no more so than Christianity - and the fanatics on both sides are as bad as each other, and below the level of this debate. Still, the suggestion that we should push for Western options within an area where there are little, or no, historical precedents raises problems - and concerns about the degree of intervention. That's where a great deal of complaint stems from - what gives us any right to directly interfere in another culture?
The strength of the attempt again creates issues - Europe has been, relativelty succint, perhaps why Al Quaeda and other such groups haven't attacked us with anything approaching the ruthless brutality of September 11th.
Still, we're approaching some degree of compromise with this argument - I wouldn't trek halfway across the world to spill my blood simply to give someone democracy; I'd consider it far more important to give them the option of finding out what western democracy is, and letting them see, for themselves, if it works best. Hence my agreement that the revolts against Saddam, and not the end of the war in Kuwait, mark the lost chance to remove this dictator.
The Iraqis rose up right before the Gulf War ended, when Saddam was had just been defeated, and his main forces were deserting. So both you and Konrad are right at the same time about when our chance was lost to get Saddam.
I think we are starting to compromise here. Our differences lie only in the initial approach to giving people freedom. You rightly say that people must be given a choice to decide thier system of government. I agree, we must show them the basis for democracy and let them decide. While many groups may not adopt a system such as the one we use, they will most likely choose a government that spreads power around and lets people influence it. A good example of this is Afganistan, where they have combined western democracy with traditional Afgan tribal councils, in time they hopefully will strike a good balance that works for them. But to be able to do what they've done, the Taliban had to be removed.
I believe that no matter what group gains freedom, given the choice and the information they will always favor a system that is fair and just and acountable to the people. But if dictators, and opressive regimes stand in their way, how can they choose anything? In cases where governments will not give their people the choice to decide their future, we must step in and help, fighting alongside them if nessesary.
Not by forcing ourselves on others, but simply to be there if they call for us. Over the last 50 years, in almost every conflict the U.S has been involved with there have been groups supprting freedom, but we more often than not let them be crushed by dictators because we prefered proteting stability and strategic value over democracy.
Had we chosen our allies better, I think the U.S would be viewed in a totaly different way today. Unfortunatley we can't change the past, but we can correct our mistakes today.
In any case after tyranny is defeated, we both agree further education, economic investment, and stability are the keys to maintaing peaceful and democratic governments. However, people must be receptive to our help for things to work, so when giving aid we have to let people help them selves not just give them handouts, and all aid schemes should be tailored to each people and their particular needs.
Finaly in regard to Islam, all religions have extremist, and the danger comes when those extremist actualy have influence. That is the case in many Islamic countries, just as it was true for europe in the middle ages.
Therfore currently Islamic extremism helps support the most represive systems in place today. And we don't have the right to interfere with a culture, except when that culture advocates the violation of rights all human beings consider essential.
------------------
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...."
We should probably get back on topic, who here knows anything about the two Supreme court cases that supposedly justfy what the President did. News reports only vauegly say "a past Supreme Court decsion", for some reason its hard to get the actual facts on this case.
Then perhaps you should look to the writings that helped form your own, American, constitution for suggestions as to how to deal with inflexibility - but the answer isn't, simply, more inflexibility on your own front and a reliance on direct interference, and action.
The same way you present the options to others, so you present them to yourself - and, the same way that Western democracy isn't always the answer, then the same way that advocating invasion, assassination, etc, isn't always the key.
And, if force is your only option for dealing with them, then why should you have any grievance when they use blind force on you? You have no comeback, and no moral highground. You're forcing your views on people, the same as any dictator; and that's what it sounds like you're implying.
As Kant notes in his work on 'perpetual peace' there can be no external involvement in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, without that state being in a state of crisis, so as to warrant the involvement on one side or another - you educate, you break the ignorance, and if they come to a consensus, you break the opposition.
I think that is were we run into a problem. Just as in United States schools where the ideals of the real Islam are not taught, partially because of a separation of church and state but because of ignorance also, in Islamic nations Christian, Jewish, LDS, etc ideals are not explained fairly. (I’m not talking about the extremists, all extremists are a problem, like you said Christian or otherwise.) The odds are fair cultural education will most likely never happen because of the government’s manipulation of the education system. I talked with a teacher from my old high-school and they have created an elective about the Koran based on a majority student request to allocate money (I went to a magnet school, different from most US High Schools).
But how do you get things to change where there is no flexibility? How can you learn your possibilities without freedom to express yourself, press, and education?
In Afghanistan women were not allowed in school. The dictators/oppressors are not going to change anything because we say they should, or by educating them. They dominate the media, and expression is dictated by law under penalty of death or jail. So how do you get them to change the education system? People who are in positions of dominant power by force only respond to force.
All I want to see is no ownership of another human being, freedom of movement, and everyone with a right to vote in some form of a majority rule system. Then women in Islam, if they want, can tolerate a patriarchal family in the name of creating a stable family. But I don’t see women getting any education, or voting, or being free to get out if they want. I don’t see the dictators changing their stance because of any dialog you or I could possibly have with them either. So what other option is there than force.
That is were we differ and will never come to a resolution. I think force is appropriate to give other people freedom of choice. I would hope people from another nation would help me if I were to be oppressed by some bully on the street or dictator in my government...
Opps, I was typing and editing when you put those last two posts up... so back to topic...
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 06-14-2002).]
"then why should you have any grievance when they use blind force on you?"
The September attacks did nothing to help my freedom to vote, move as I wish, or receive an education... if anything it has handed the feds more power over me.
For the life of me I can't find anything about Supreme Court cases...
This is all I've got: [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32435-2002Jun11.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32435-2002Jun11.html[/url]
I did run across this interesting/disturbing note however:
"Cumberland, Md.: Recently I have read in overseas publications that the EU is contemplating granting broad access for Interpol to monitor E-MAIL, phone call, Internet activities of all citizens and mainting such records for a 5 years period. What do you think of this plan? Shouldn't we be contemplating something like this in the US? (#$%@, This person needs "educating" right now!)
William Hartung: Blanket efforts to track e-mails raise serious civil liberties issues. They also raise serious practical problems. Much like the National Security Agency, which has reams of satellite and signals intelligence but not enough people to process it all in a timely fashion, more is not necessarily better. Similarly, when our intelligence and law enforcement agencies don't have people to translate potentially important documents from their original languages, electronic surveillance on its own achieves nothing. It seems to me there needs to be a way to establish that a particular individual may pose a danger before tapping their telephone or reading their e-mail, both on civil liberties grounds and as a way of setting priorities. If the government is watching everybody, it might as well not be watching anybody.
This apeared in this dialoge: [url="http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/nation_hartung061002.htm"]http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/nation_hartung061002.htm[/url]
The other interesting development was this: [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45814-2002Jun13.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45814-2002Jun13.html[/url]
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 06-14-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 06-14-2002).]
Konrad, I think you've missed the point of my objection, which was principally hypothetical - I don't know where your comeback is coming from... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/confused.gif[/img]
The problem is you want to educate, and hope for change. I would love it if education worked in this case, but my point was it would not with a dictator in place. I have never said that “advocating invasion, assassination, etc, [is] always the key.” I just believe it is just in this case, if we want to help these people gain their freedom to vote, move, be free of slavery.
Given your comments earlier like: “The simple fact is, that if people don't like the way certain regimes are running, then they're generally free to make their move - except if you're Palestinian or Iraqi, it would seem, in which case you're stuck where you are (smiley sticking out tongue)”
I know you don’t care to help people gain their freedom when they can’t help themselves, your answer is to stick out your tongue at them (just as you did in your post). I do care to help them. There is no way you can go to said countries, and educate the people to revolt without becoming an enemy of the state/dictator and loosing your life.
My reply was that in these specific cases and only these, I believe if these people/women are going to see freedom to vote, move, and not be owned in a indentured manor any time in the near future we would have to use force.
You had already set up a reply to force being okay with your statement of: "then why should you have any grievance when they use blind force on you?" To which I responded that no outside force or nation, be it on September 11 or any other time has attacked or invaded the United States or its interests to ensure that I had a right to move, vote, and be free from slavery. If someone or some government were to hold myself or my country hostage I would hope that Europe, The United Kingdom, or another nation would help me/us. In addition, no strikes I would advocate would ever be “blind.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.” Patrick Henry
“…out of my cold dead hands.”
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.“
As TheEXone said, we clearly have different fundamental perspectives on life, and will never agree.
First off, you have no concept of how much I care to help people attain their freedom! If you're concept of debating is putting what you'd like to hear into peoples' mouths then you should disappear for a good long while until you can attempt something constructive.
If education, and winning hearts and minds, has never been capable of winning people over to change the way things are then how do you explain the long historical precedent of such? How do you explain away social change and revolution?
The simple fact is that history shows that internal change is a realistic mode of seeking to change the balance of power, and redress grievances within a state - and with less ulterior complications than outside involvement!
You're next comment is pure idiocy! I'm a member of the Friends of Palestine, an affiliate of the General Union of Palestinian Students - and I don't care about freedom? No; I know irony where I see it, and I see it in your stance. If you want to give your life for freedom then go to the West Bank and die, like those who do everyday simply struggling for their freedom - those who are systematically humiliated, abused, tortured and murdered! Oh, the truth is much darker than you'll ever see on the US news - I suggest you go there and see it; I'm going this later this year as a volunteer. And where's the irony? The US sells guns to the only apartheid state left in existence... nice one, and despite having the voting block to censure them turns its back on their illegal occupation in face of two UN articles.
Well, that bordered on being personally offensive to me [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
Still, you want to use force - why not in this case? They want their freedom - they're entitled to it; and if you're willing to fight for freedom, as you say, surely you have to acknowledge this case. Free Palestine?
You're still missing my point with regards to force - what I'm saying is why should it be one rule for one, and one rule for another? I made no comment about blind force being ok - I still maintain that it's immoral if without the consent of the local populace; and an educated consent. If you're acting on their behalf, then fair enough - but simply flinging your weight, and your own values in, is out of order and deserves local resentment.
To which you answered that no attack on the US has ever threatened your freedom - the question remains, what are you talking about?
Certainly, we'd come to your aid - if you want your freedoms, and a set of values, then self-determination gives you a right to them. But imagine if we tried to give you a nice monarchy, with a wonderful parliament... I don't think you'd buy that [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Comments
With regards to the Middle East, there's a difference between trying to support the stability of the region, and actually trying to manipulate the politics of the area to your own benefit - a nicely ironic case being the CIA support of the Taliban in coming to power.
So, if a radical Islamic movement came to power, that was hostile to the west, you could see the entire area explode? Quite amusing, that we now see a double-take in your policy with regards to this - a la Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which again leads me to the point that I made earlier - take responsibility for your actions!
Now, on the Israeli issue - yes, Europe supported the creation of the Israeli nation. The basic principle of self-determination support it's formation, and no one can deny the right of the Jewish people to a homeland; and with the spectre of the holocaust still lingering over most of Western Europe, it was the decision at the forefront of European political conscience. However, you have failed to notice the withdrawal of support for Israel when it become, for all intents and purposes, an apartheid state, of the utmost racial intolerance. Should it come as any surprise that the 'Arabs' (you know, they're not that generic - read the history of the area) were not massively keen on their new neighbour, who was systematically not only expanding their borders into 'Arab' territory, but also advocating the treatment of 'Arabs' as, effectively, subhumans.
That's the harsh reality of it - we won't support Israel whilst it remains racist, and whilst it continues to illegally occupy 'Arab' land; as noted by two UN declarations. So, why should the US, defender of freedom on the global scene, continue to support a state that is the anti-thesis of all it could surely stand for, against the protest of the United Nations... ?
Is there a good answer to this one?
Ah, and now for my favourite - European ambivalence to the US. You've, again, failed to address my complaint - you say we operate under similar capitalistic systems; which, fair enough, we do. The sad thing being that we don't sanction you when the competition proves too much - you can't even play by the rules of the world you claim to have helped create. Still, we should keep our mouths shut when our ally decides to sell us short when it suits them.
No.
Hence the apathetic response to Powell's visit; the French were suitably bored to tears, and rightly so - a visiting foreign diplomat comes to chastise us for complaining when the US fobs off our concerns. It came as no surprise to find America's finest politician ridiculed in the press.
Your argument wanders off then... so I'm not sure if there's any points worth coming back on; though I would contend that Europe is in no way culpable for any of the actions of the US - though we may well be a target by affiliation.
[quote][b]I think the reason Europe is trying to stop the U.S from attacking Iraq is because they are afraid the ensuing conflict could spill over and affect Europeans.[/b][/quote]
Erm... we went into one war, and I don't think you have any reason to call our integrity into question. The simple fact is that public opinion is more concerned with the thousands who've died as a result of the sanctions, rather than any paranoia about Iraq. The whole situation could have been dealt with a lot more succinctly, but now you have Bush rambling on about taking Iraq out. Nice. You've pushed the people of Iraq to the wall, and let them see the devastating effects of your persistent bombing and crippling sanctions... and you wonder why they resist?
Oh, and the Taliban... well, you put them into power, so I think you should be addressing the questions to yourself. You can't force your views on people - that's a perfect argument for freedom; yet you installed a radical regime that inspired resent at the time.
I've also noted that you seem to confuse Islam with some oppressive regime - I suggest you should read a little further. Go away and have a nice hard think about what caused such feelings of resentment. That's what my original post was encouraging, and that's what I'd advocate this time. There's the saying that there's no smoke without fire, and regardless of whether the US' detractors really care about the wider issues, there's something more than petty jealousy behind their complaints - and you falsely flatter yourself if that's all the substance you believe them to have.
Hint, hint, eh?
Mr_Bungle: You took the words out of my mouth but I'd caution your use of "you". U.S. power structure and the U.S. majority are distinctly separate. While the naivite of this majority will deter acceptance of this view, the deterence shouldn't apply to you.
The sheep are evenly spread throughout the inhabited Earth.
------------------
[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 06-12-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 06-12-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 06-12-2002).]
With regards to the use of the term "you", I was merely playing on the us/them theme - I agree that there remains a distinction between the opinions of the people of the United States, and the opinions and principles of the governing institutions; though there does remain one angle in which the distinction is reduced, somewhat.
Have you read the 'Two Treatise of Government', by Locke? Locke was one of the principal thinkers of modern liberalism, whose ideas were incorporated into the creation of not only the American concept of the American nation, but the constitution as well.
From there, take a look at his theory of consent - admittedly, it's very open to criticism, but concepts such as tacit consent, where you effectively consent to the actions of the government by your very willingness to live under such a government, does narrow the difference. For Locke, you automatically consent, tacitly - or expressly - unless you actively voice dissent.
That's the tack that I normally take when people say "well, there's a difference..." - there may well be, but unless you make it clear with your actions, then the thinking which helped create your nation simply leaves you as another willing participant in the actions of a government accepted by the citizen body.
[This message has been edited by Mr_Bungle (edited 06-12-2002).]
------------------
[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 06-12-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 06-12-2002).]
The way this has been handled is a very scary look into the future of America. I would much rather live with some fear of terrorist attacks than to allow my government officials the power to cancel a "Citizens" rights.
Two points already expressed are:
1. The complete bypass of his rights to trial and pressumed innocence, etc.
2. The fact that he was detained and arrested before the fact.
What is this? Minority Report or something?
Sure the system sucks a lot, but it's the best and only thing we have to keep us civilized.
I look ahead with morbid fear of the day the president and his croneys will be able to seize your assets, and cancel your citizenship just because you disagree with him and spoke publically about it.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
------------------
[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 06-12-2002).]
[b]Why are your forces in the middle east? Why are you supporting Israel - bad policy examples; the US isn't as altruistic as you might like to think.
I never claimed it was altruistic, I actualy am a hard core realist on the international scean, I believe while Hans Morgenthau didnt get it right, he's disturbingly acurate.
[QUOTE][B]
The comment on working with the world, was primarily the suggestion that America drops it's swagger on the world stage - your arrogance has cost you before, and is continuing to cost you. Listen to the greivances, don't simply brush them aside as the mumblings of some second-rate power. If you can't have the decency to do that, then why should we give you any respect? Colin Powell hit it on the head when he criticised Europe for it's negative stance on America - but why should we give you any respect?
[/b][/quote]
Why do you think we should care? Europe trys to claim its own "impartiality" when its involved in its own power politics, Italy is involved in the Eritrean mess up to its elbows but nobody talks about it (if you say they arent, I would like to point out that alot of money flows from Italy into Eritrea.
And frankly its also not just the US, France has forces in Djbuti, and the UK has of troops in Oman, while Italy has agreements to supply ships out of Eritrea last I checked, so European forces are just litteraly over the horizon from the middle east.
[quote][b]
And this is Europe - your closest ally, starting to lose it's patience. You're playing games with the world - you won't operate fairly on the markets; throw your sanctions around; meddle in the affairs of other nations; throw your UN voting block around like, somehow, you should be entitled to be outside of the boundaries placed on the rest of us; you play your stupid power games, throwing Kyoto down the drain simply to ease over your own vested interests...
... you know, the list goes on and on - and they're all honest grievances.
[/b][/quote]
Throw our weight around in the markets? considering EU has embargo's on a multitude of US goods, PRIOR to the steel tarif? considerint the Eurobus consortium is trying to drive Boeing out of the buisness by offering generous no interest loans coming from the French government? At least the US government only offers no interest loans for military goods. (which the EU does also)Frankly the EU wasnt playing fair ball either, and thats why we imposed the steel tarifs, and there are ALOT of subsides by the EU governments also, so you cant point fingers there.
As for the US maintaining all these regiems, the French played a instrumental role in getting Sadam into power (guess who his first arms suppliers were, in fact sadam bought more french weaponry then he ever bought american, we actualy sold him very little) The UK and France also have roles in sustaining the by and large hated King of Saudi arabia, and in general, and the rise of the Taliban occured with enthusiatic British support (the english intelligence agencies are just more quiet about their involvment) considering it was formaly a psudo english colony)
As for the US veto, we still are behind the Russians in using it, and we are not terribly ahead of the UK or France, the only nation which historicly has sparing used it is china.
And Kyoto was a joke, it still hasnt been ratified (yes signed, but it doesnt matter till its ratified) by most of europe, and there were wonderfull things in there like all the rest of the world could declare its forests as CO2 sinks to reduce its estimated CO2 production, where as the US was forbiden from doing the same. Funny the state I live in has more forests then about half the signatories to the Kyoto accords. Kyoto was a horribly unfair agreement that the world was trying to ram through the throats of americans
And the damn science for global warming STILL isnt there, the honest truth is we dont know if the global warming is unusual, there is strong evidence to indicate that the earth is just returing to its average temperature (which is quite warm) since we are actualy on a geological time scale damn close to the end of the last ice age (10,000) and it was an unusual ice age at that, lasting a tenth as long as they normaly do, heck Ive seen some scientific arguments that we are just in a localized hi spike before temperatures plummet again.
and lastly the middle east could care less about Kyoto.
[quote][b]
So, you can imagine why the fanatics of the Islamic world call America the 'satanic power' - to them you are. Blind hatred is born from honest complaint, and your policies have been more than enough to generate complaint.
Oh, you've actually given me a good example of the attitude that gets the world's back up - "and sharia law isnt the answer" - is that your call to make? You can't force your views on people.
[/b][/quote]
But you can? isnt that what your trying to do dicate american policy?
I find it very easy to say what I said, the problem with the islamic nations is not that they need to toughen their religious laws, its that they need to demand accountability for their own policies.
Whats currently occuring is that policy makers in islamic countries are incouring their religious extremists in order to cover up for fiscal mismanegment and general crooked government. That is the pressing problem that they need to address
The only query I have is, if you're a "hardcore realist", why do you still seek to find excuses for the current trend of negativity with regards to the US and it's actions?
Still, whilst we're here, I might as well come back on some of your points. The tarifs and sanctions - certainly, you've already admitted that we're working within a capitalist system; why should it be so surprising that the knife is being turned in your hand? I'm very much in favour of the strengthening of the economy of the EU, as a whole; my grievance is that the US is much more active in producing a bias towards its own services and industry.
Foreign regimes - certainly the UK and France have been very active with regards to their arms sales, but less so in trying to exert an influence on the politics of the region. When they have they have primarily followed an American lead, such as the use of UK forces in the establishment of the Taliban regime, at the behest of the US forces already concerned with the operation.
That, for me, is the critical difference - we've been succinct, and to the point. We haven't pushed our own issues too far, such as I would say the US, possibly, has. Mind you, I've never argued any differently, but the primary catalyst for recent troubles has been the effect of long-term US policy in the Middle East.
[quote][b]Kyoto was a joke[/b][/quote]
Yes, it certainly was - and the sacrifice of concern for the global ecosystem simply to satisfy US domestic energy policies is despicable. The US is the primary source for CO2 output, regardless of the capacity of its forests to 'sink' the CO2. The simple fact being that the disposition of US industry, and forestry reserves, doesn't aid for the sinking of any dramatic degree of this output. As such the US threw out an agreement that would have been the foundation stone of a much more concerted global policy on the protection of the ecosystem - you're quite right it was a joke; but you didn't see anyone laughing outside of the US.
Ice age evidence can neither say 'yay' or 'nay', but it would be foolish to continue to say "wait and see" - I've had the pleasure of writing numerous case studies on the subject, and I know the arguments on both sides are contentious. The simple fact is that the ecosystem continues to be damaged, and a step to counter this global threat was discarded, out of hand, by the US - despite relative contentment with the plans from the rest of heavily industrialised, and industrialising, nations.
Your last point, with regards to accountability, would fit in well here - just where is the US' accountability? I would have thought it lay with the US people, but it seems you're only getting half the story, and if it doesn't have the stars and stripes on it then it must be wrong.
Also, your points about the Middle East not caring for Kyoto, and my trying to dictate US policy - what are you talking about? Do [i]you[/i] even know?
No one's trying to dictate US policy - though I can think of a lot of people who would like to! - I'm just trying to reason that there needs to be some degree of responsibility, and not "well, you're just as bad"; that makes your actions any more 'right'? And a degree of accountability.
So, rather than have this "war on terrorism", to further the division, why not try and address the issues that led to this problem, and kick the stool out from beneath the 'fanatics'?
I wrote that both Europe and the U.S have been involved in shaping the destiny of the 3rd world. We´ve both had hands in manipulating countries for our own benifit. The reason why the U.S has done more, and done things more visbly is because its bigger, and as a superpower is always under the spot lite. I firmly call for a change in the way things are done, and see no reason for us to argue. What I think is ridiculous is that Europeans only blame the U.S and then refuse to admit their compliance with our policies. That is hipocracy in my opinion and has to stop.
I have not hid or downplayed what the U.S has done, I only explained why those things occured. I admit my countries involvement, now you admit yours.
As for my remark about Islam, I never equated the Muslim religion with tyranny or opresion. If you look back I stated that radical Islam is the evil, just as radical Christianity was durring the middle ages.
I oppose anyone who would use the name of God as justification for evil.
[b].
So, rather than have this "war on terrorism", to further the division, why not try and address the issues that led to this problem, and kick the stool out from beneath the 'fanatics'?
[/b][/quote]
I fully support doing that, we must remove the reasons that terrorist use to justify killing. But I also think that reagardless of what we did to put people like Saddam in power, right now, today we must remove him. Part of fixing our errors is to once and for all stop tolerating dictators and opressive regimes. This will not occur with sanctions or negotiations, only force will fix that problem. We corrected our mistake with the Taliban, now lets correct our mistake with Saddam.
------------------
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...."
[This message has been edited by TheEXone (edited 06-13-2002).]
I don’t know what the perfect answer is. I don’t think there is one. I do know that the last time the United States went for an isolationist mentality, which many US disgruntled Europeans seem to be calling for, things were fine domestically but didn’t go so well abroad. Churchill had to beg us to get off our butts, and even then we were slow to move to stop a dictatorial tyrant.
So is the answer to go into the Middle East and Africa by force and remove all dictators, establish Constitutions fashioned around the US, Swiss, or other one (with an emphasis on women’s rights) and enforce free voting for at least a generation? I think maybe. Am I personally willing to spill my blood for the freedom of my fellow man? Yes. The problem is to many of you are not. Right now in Kuwait the people are voting in more power for the Islamic Parties. I don’t have a problem with that as long as the people continue to have freedom to vote and to leave the country if they don’t like the way things are going. There is no denying that there is oppression in the world.
Freedom is the ultimate Human Right with out question or argument. What are you doing to ensure your fellow mans freedom?
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 06-13-2002).]
It's a combination of that unique brand of naivety that they seem to sell on pay-per-view, and the odd gem of real wisdom - but, on the whole, it's mismatched and taking the discussion nowhere.
Your apportioning of blame for the failure to 'finish the job' in Iraq is sadly lacking any reasoning - the simple fact was that to go further would have achieved no aim, other than the antagonisation of the region. Allied action was aimed around the freeing of the, then, invaded Kuwait.
You might have noted that tension sky rocketed in the region - Schwarzkopf, whilst a good military leader, if he'd correct in your assertion had a limited grasp on the political realities of the situation. Sure, the US could have finished the job - but only at the cost of alienating the Arab allies whose goodwill they needed for the realistic accomplishment of their mission in Kuwait.
It's not a case of not having the stomach - it's a case of having the sense to be practical, and realistic, with regards to situations. This is something you have no grasp of - you should plow into the middle east and 'enforce free voting'?
So, you're going to invade these sovereign nations to install your own belief/political systems (by implication) - and you're defending [i]freedom[/i]?
You're having a laugh, more like - like I said, it's not your call to say the constitutions of those nations don't work, and that you know any better; that's part of their being sovereign, and if you can't respect that, then why should they respect you?
The simple fact is, they wouldn't - hatred begets hatred, and a pig ignorant foreign policy like the one you're advocating is the right way to go about furthering anti-US sentiments within the region.
The simple fact is, that if people don't like the way certain regimes are running, then they're generally free to make their move - except if you're Palestinian or Iraqi, it would seem, in which case you're stuck where you are [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
I've had ten pints, and your argument is tosh - my objection still stands, that the US has been irresponsible in its foreign policy, and you're just serving to underline that fact. So, back to my suggestion - take the hint, and take the responsibility for your actions.
[This message has been edited by Mr_Bungle (edited 06-13-2002).]
This guy was (allegedly) carrying plans to build a bomb that would spread radiation over a wide area. Presumably, this was to be used on an American city, or he wouldn't have been coming into the US. Personally, while I admit that I'm slightly troubled by the end-run around what's left of the US legal system, I also have to admit that IMHO this guy reneged on his membership dues as an American a LONG time ago, right about the time that he (allegedly) started planning to build the next best thing to a neutron bomb with the intent of making a whole lot of his "fellow citizens" glow in the dark.
I was reading an article about some attempted damage control on the situation; the suggestion being that he was planning activities against the state, but maybe not on the scale of taking a whole city with him.
Either way, I'm curious - if he's out of line, he's out of line, and should be treated as such.
Yeesh.
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
If a man is found with such plans, why not just bring him to court? Look at possible evidence, and then put him in jail if he is found to be guilty. There is simply *no valid reason* to take him (or anyone else) his civil rights.
It is the *core terrorist idea* to invoke fear in people. If you act out of fear, this fear will be used to manipulate you.
One should never raise fences against one's fears, or one will be imprisoned behind those fences one day.
The US society is really going down a dark path, and with its economic and military power it pulls the whole world with it. If European governments follow this path (and they do: In Germany, in the last months have more civil rights been slashed than in whole decades before) they are as well to be hold responsible.
When I said that you will have to draw the line, I did mean you as *citizens*. Of course, that holds for the people of European or other countries.
[EDIT] For more background information: [url="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/bomb-j12.shtml"]http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/bomb-j12.shtml[/url] [/EDIT]
------------------
We are one. No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the world, no matter the star. .. We are one.
No matter the pain, no matter the darkness, no matter the loss, no matter the fear. .. We are one.
- Alliance Preamble to the Declaration of Principles, The Paragon of Animals
Webmaster [url="http://www.Sprungtor.de"]www.Sprungtor.de[/url]
[This message has been edited by Language of Hope (edited 06-14-2002).]
Konrad I completly agree with you, in cases where you can't negociate with dictators we have to help remove them. Mr. bungle while a single drive to eliminate opression might result in a huge conflict, if thing were done over time positive results could occur.
No one is advocating we invade countries that choose a particular system, what we should do is fight when the people of a country demand it. The people of Iraq rose up twice in the last decade to oppose Iraq, and we did nothing.
Sovereignty is often used by governments to excuse their behavior, the mentality that its not our right to interfere in other countries is like saying a man who sees a woman geting abused by her husband should do nothing. Yes people have the right to choose their government, but they also have the right to change their government if they don't like what it ends up doing. You say that removing oppresive regimes by force would make people hate us more, I strongly disagree. Look at Afganistan, when the Taliban were topled people thanked the U.S, they welcomed U.S troops in the street. Why because we helped them win back their freedom.
The reason why many hate the U.S is because in the past we have supported Dictators for our own interests, and we have supported opressive regimes to keep economic control of areas. Its time we stop that, and work to make sure everyone of us has freedom, not just the ones with the luxury of living in the west. I don't belive that the fight of people 1000 miles way is not my fight, and I shouldn't get involved, I beleive that it is my fight because those people are my people,they are not some different race or group, to me they are humans just like me and they want freedom just like me.
You may call me naive, or gung-ho, but thats what I beleive. While I don't think leaders in any country will do what I propose, I do think they should.
[This message has been edited by TheEXone (edited 06-14-2002).]
However, I was simly taking the realistic tack - my personal belief has always been progress for education; but, in order to learn, you have to have a people willing to learn. That much is a given, but isn't something that many in the the US government are willing to recognise - that there might be debate, some unwillingness, and possibly further avenues for progress.
Islam isn't totally repressive, no more so than Christianity - and the fanatics on both sides are as bad as each other, and below the level of this debate. Still, the suggestion that we should push for Western options within an area where there are little, or no, historical precedents raises problems - and concerns about the degree of intervention. That's where a great deal of complaint stems from - what gives us any right to directly interfere in another culture?
The strength of the attempt again creates issues - Europe has been, relativelty succint, perhaps why Al Quaeda and other such groups haven't attacked us with anything approaching the ruthless brutality of September 11th.
Still, we're approaching some degree of compromise with this argument - I wouldn't trek halfway across the world to spill my blood simply to give someone democracy; I'd consider it far more important to give them the option of finding out what western democracy is, and letting them see, for themselves, if it works best. Hence my agreement that the revolts against Saddam, and not the end of the war in Kuwait, mark the lost chance to remove this dictator.
I think we are starting to compromise here. Our differences lie only in the initial approach to giving people freedom. You rightly say that people must be given a choice to decide thier system of government. I agree, we must show them the basis for democracy and let them decide. While many groups may not adopt a system such as the one we use, they will most likely choose a government that spreads power around and lets people influence it. A good example of this is Afganistan, where they have combined western democracy with traditional Afgan tribal councils, in time they hopefully will strike a good balance that works for them. But to be able to do what they've done, the Taliban had to be removed.
I believe that no matter what group gains freedom, given the choice and the information they will always favor a system that is fair and just and acountable to the people. But if dictators, and opressive regimes stand in their way, how can they choose anything? In cases where governments will not give their people the choice to decide their future, we must step in and help, fighting alongside them if nessesary.
Not by forcing ourselves on others, but simply to be there if they call for us. Over the last 50 years, in almost every conflict the U.S has been involved with there have been groups supprting freedom, but we more often than not let them be crushed by dictators because we prefered proteting stability and strategic value over democracy.
Had we chosen our allies better, I think the U.S would be viewed in a totaly different way today. Unfortunatley we can't change the past, but we can correct our mistakes today.
In any case after tyranny is defeated, we both agree further education, economic investment, and stability are the keys to maintaing peaceful and democratic governments. However, people must be receptive to our help for things to work, so when giving aid we have to let people help them selves not just give them handouts, and all aid schemes should be tailored to each people and their particular needs.
Finaly in regard to Islam, all religions have extremist, and the danger comes when those extremist actualy have influence. That is the case in many Islamic countries, just as it was true for europe in the middle ages.
Therfore currently Islamic extremism helps support the most represive systems in place today. And we don't have the right to interfere with a culture, except when that culture advocates the violation of rights all human beings consider essential.
------------------
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...."
The same way you present the options to others, so you present them to yourself - and, the same way that Western democracy isn't always the answer, then the same way that advocating invasion, assassination, etc, isn't always the key.
And, if force is your only option for dealing with them, then why should you have any grievance when they use blind force on you? You have no comeback, and no moral highground. You're forcing your views on people, the same as any dictator; and that's what it sounds like you're implying.
As Kant notes in his work on 'perpetual peace' there can be no external involvement in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, without that state being in a state of crisis, so as to warrant the involvement on one side or another - you educate, you break the ignorance, and if they come to a consensus, you break the opposition.
But how do you get things to change where there is no flexibility? How can you learn your possibilities without freedom to express yourself, press, and education?
In Afghanistan women were not allowed in school. The dictators/oppressors are not going to change anything because we say they should, or by educating them. They dominate the media, and expression is dictated by law under penalty of death or jail. So how do you get them to change the education system? People who are in positions of dominant power by force only respond to force.
All I want to see is no ownership of another human being, freedom of movement, and everyone with a right to vote in some form of a majority rule system. Then women in Islam, if they want, can tolerate a patriarchal family in the name of creating a stable family. But I don’t see women getting any education, or voting, or being free to get out if they want. I don’t see the dictators changing their stance because of any dialog you or I could possibly have with them either. So what other option is there than force.
That is were we differ and will never come to a resolution. I think force is appropriate to give other people freedom of choice. I would hope people from another nation would help me if I were to be oppressed by some bully on the street or dictator in my government...
Opps, I was typing and editing when you put those last two posts up... so back to topic...
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 06-14-2002).]
The September attacks did nothing to help my freedom to vote, move as I wish, or receive an education... if anything it has handed the feds more power over me.
For the life of me I can't find anything about Supreme Court cases...
This is all I've got: [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32435-2002Jun11.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32435-2002Jun11.html[/url]
I did run across this interesting/disturbing note however:
"Cumberland, Md.: Recently I have read in overseas publications that the EU is contemplating granting broad access for Interpol to monitor E-MAIL, phone call, Internet activities of all citizens and mainting such records for a 5 years period. What do you think of this plan? Shouldn't we be contemplating something like this in the US? (#$%@, This person needs "educating" right now!)
William Hartung: Blanket efforts to track e-mails raise serious civil liberties issues. They also raise serious practical problems. Much like the National Security Agency, which has reams of satellite and signals intelligence but not enough people to process it all in a timely fashion, more is not necessarily better. Similarly, when our intelligence and law enforcement agencies don't have people to translate potentially important documents from their original languages, electronic surveillance on its own achieves nothing. It seems to me there needs to be a way to establish that a particular individual may pose a danger before tapping their telephone or reading their e-mail, both on civil liberties grounds and as a way of setting priorities. If the government is watching everybody, it might as well not be watching anybody.
This apeared in this dialoge: [url="http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/nation_hartung061002.htm"]http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/nation_hartung061002.htm[/url]
The other interesting development was this: [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45814-2002Jun13.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45814-2002Jun13.html[/url]
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 06-14-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 06-14-2002).]
The problem is you want to educate, and hope for change. I would love it if education worked in this case, but my point was it would not with a dictator in place. I have never said that “advocating invasion, assassination, etc, [is] always the key.” I just believe it is just in this case, if we want to help these people gain their freedom to vote, move, be free of slavery.
Given your comments earlier like: “The simple fact is, that if people don't like the way certain regimes are running, then they're generally free to make their move - except if you're Palestinian or Iraqi, it would seem, in which case you're stuck where you are (smiley sticking out tongue)”
I know you don’t care to help people gain their freedom when they can’t help themselves, your answer is to stick out your tongue at them (just as you did in your post). I do care to help them. There is no way you can go to said countries, and educate the people to revolt without becoming an enemy of the state/dictator and loosing your life.
My reply was that in these specific cases and only these, I believe if these people/women are going to see freedom to vote, move, and not be owned in a indentured manor any time in the near future we would have to use force.
You had already set up a reply to force being okay with your statement of: "then why should you have any grievance when they use blind force on you?" To which I responded that no outside force or nation, be it on September 11 or any other time has attacked or invaded the United States or its interests to ensure that I had a right to move, vote, and be free from slavery. If someone or some government were to hold myself or my country hostage I would hope that Europe, The United Kingdom, or another nation would help me/us. In addition, no strikes I would advocate would ever be “blind.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.” Patrick Henry
“…out of my cold dead hands.”
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.“
As TheEXone said, we clearly have different fundamental perspectives on life, and will never agree.
If education, and winning hearts and minds, has never been capable of winning people over to change the way things are then how do you explain the long historical precedent of such? How do you explain away social change and revolution?
The simple fact is that history shows that internal change is a realistic mode of seeking to change the balance of power, and redress grievances within a state - and with less ulterior complications than outside involvement!
You're next comment is pure idiocy! I'm a member of the Friends of Palestine, an affiliate of the General Union of Palestinian Students - and I don't care about freedom? No; I know irony where I see it, and I see it in your stance. If you want to give your life for freedom then go to the West Bank and die, like those who do everyday simply struggling for their freedom - those who are systematically humiliated, abused, tortured and murdered! Oh, the truth is much darker than you'll ever see on the US news - I suggest you go there and see it; I'm going this later this year as a volunteer. And where's the irony? The US sells guns to the only apartheid state left in existence... nice one, and despite having the voting block to censure them turns its back on their illegal occupation in face of two UN articles.
Well, that bordered on being personally offensive to me [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
Still, you want to use force - why not in this case? They want their freedom - they're entitled to it; and if you're willing to fight for freedom, as you say, surely you have to acknowledge this case. Free Palestine?
You're still missing my point with regards to force - what I'm saying is why should it be one rule for one, and one rule for another? I made no comment about blind force being ok - I still maintain that it's immoral if without the consent of the local populace; and an educated consent. If you're acting on their behalf, then fair enough - but simply flinging your weight, and your own values in, is out of order and deserves local resentment.
To which you answered that no attack on the US has ever threatened your freedom - the question remains, what are you talking about?
Certainly, we'd come to your aid - if you want your freedoms, and a set of values, then self-determination gives you a right to them. But imagine if we tried to give you a nice monarchy, with a wonderful parliament... I don't think you'd buy that [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]