NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late

[Burnsys]

The problem is,, why is amercia the one who decides?? When they doesn't respect human rights...

 

[PerennialII]

Answer me this: If, hypothetically, Hitler had contained his murder of Jews to Germany and had not invaded Poland or any other country, would you have defended German sovereignty? Don't you think there are situations in which invasion of a country which isn't being outwardly aggressive is justified?

Yes, sovereignty should be a tool used for the expansion of human rights. But in some cases, it is counterproductive human rights-wise to support the rights of sovereign nations not to be invaded. Think about this: in some cases, you're not supporting the soveriegnty of a nation so much as the sovereignty of a couple of people who happen to be brutally ruling the country in question, often without the consent of the people.

I don't actually support an invasion of Iran (though I may in the future, if it becomes "necessary"). I just think that it's foolish to say that upholding the sovereignty of a nation which is known to violate human rights is the universally best way to proceed. I agree with Arildno: human rights are more important than the rights of nations.

At this point the strong UN like of an organization is supposed to kick in.

 

[Smurf]

Answer me this: If, hypothetically, Hitler had contained his murder of Jews to Germany and had not invaded Poland or any other country, would you have defended German sovereignty?

Depends. You're changing history so it is impossible to determine what the situation would have been like. Most likely yes. Simply making the dictator historically famous and globally hated does not change anything.

Don't you think there are situations in which invasion of a country which isn't being outwardly aggressive is justified?

No, military action is never justified except in self defence to other aggressive military action. Anything more and you simply escalate the problem.

in some cases, you're not supporting the soveriegnty of a nation so much as the sovereignty of a couple of people who happen to be brutally ruling the country in question, often without the consent of the people.

You can't rule a thousand people who don't consent to your rule.
No, I'm not avoiding your point, I'm showing that your point is exagerated beyond reason.

I don't actually support an invasion of Iran (though I may in the future, if it becomes "necessary").

What is your criteria for when it becomes 'necessary' to cause the death of thousands of people?

I just think that it's foolish to say that upholding the sovereignty of a nation which is known to violate human rights is the universally best way to proceed.

You're assuming guns and bombs are the only way to solve a problem. Try using your imagination and solve the problem, instead of just moving it around.

 

[Archon]

Depends. You're changing history so it is impossible to determine what the situation would have been like. Most likely yes. Simply making the dictator historically famous and globally hated does not change anything.

How extreme does the example have to be? Imagine a situation in which some dictator is killing millions of people in his own country. You are telling me that you wouldn't support an invasion, even with, say, widespread support among other countries (just in case this is really about the recent U.S. invasions)?

No, military action is never justified except in self defence to other aggressive military action. Anything more and you simply escalate the problem.

I'm sure the people being abused and killed appreciate this sentiment. If you exchange "is never" and "isn't usually," then I think this sentance makes sense. But using the word "never" makes it too idealistic. Can you justify some other sort of action in response to dictator killing millions scenario that I described above (even if it is extreme: this is justified by your use of the word "never")?

You can't rule a thousand people who don't consent to your rule.
No, I'm not avoiding your point, I'm showing that your point is exagerated beyond reason.

Oh come on. You can rule a thousand people if you have an army of 100 armed with tanks and assault rifles. If you kill people for suggesting rebellion and if the forces loyal to you are sufficient to defeat any uprising, then you can rule anything. Don't you think this would work?

How many people do you think really approved of Stalin? How many people in Eastern European countries do you think actually wanted to be "protected" by the Soviet Union and ruled by communist governments? Do you think they would have had a chance to overthrow these governments before the Soviet Union began to fall apart?

What is your criteria for when it becomes 'necessary' to cause the death of thousands of people?

Well, perhaps the loss of a few thousand people is worth it if you save millions of people who would otherwise have died at the hands of some brutal dictator?

You're assuming guns and bombs are the only way to solve a problem. Try using your imagination and solve the problem, instead of just moving it around.

What?! I'm saying that allowing sovereign nations to retain their sovereignty isn't always the best way to proceed. I'm not saying that we should solve every problem with bombs and guns. I'm saying that some problems can realistically only be solved with bombs and guns. You can use diplomacy (useless against many dictators) or sanctions (more harm than good) all you want, but explain your lack of decisive military action to the millions who die before anything is really done.

 

[Burnsys]

Again Archon... And who takes the decicion of who is removed with guns and bombs?? Why US...

 

[Smurf]

How extreme does the example have to be? Imagine a situation in which some dictator is killing millions of people in his own country. You are telling me that you wouldn't support an invasion, even with, say, widespread support among other countries (just in case this is really about the recent U.S. invasions)?

I'm sure the people being abused and killed appreciate this sentiment. If you exchange "is never" and "isn't usually," then I think this sentance makes sense. But using the word "never" makes it too idealistic. Can you justify some other sort of action in response to dictator killing millions scenario that I described above (even if it is extreme: this is justified by your use of the word "never")?

If a dictator is killing millions of people on a regular basis and not doing anything outside of his country I would think his regime won't last longa anyways, if only because he's going to run out of people really really quickly.

Okay look, saying never use violence is too open-ended. The point is there is never a realistic example where it gets to the point military action is justified. You can easily imagine up some absolute horror and say "Nothing else would work" and you'd be right... but it wouldn't exist. There is always going to be a better way, one that is quite possibly more cost effective too. And I will gladly come up with some alternatives to any conflict you want.

Oh come on. You can rule a thousand people if you have an army of 100 armed with tanks and assault rifles. If you kill people for suggesting rebellion and if the forces loyal to you are sufficient to defeat any uprising, then you can rule anything. Don't you think this would work?

Yeah, that would work. The problem is you'd never be able to pay 1 full time soldier for every 10 citizens in your country. You'd have the army mutinying on yourself because they're not living off of much more than the peasants because it's spread so thin and they, being the army, arn't producing anything themselves.

Again, I should have specified the realism part.

How many people do you think really approved of Stalin?

Everyone did. Only after his death did all his crimes come out. He was actually very clever about it.

How many people in Eastern European countries do you think actually wanted to be "protected" by the Soviet Union and ruled by communist governments?

None, that's why they're no longer communist, and they weren't invaded by a big bad democratic power to stop it. Now imagine how much faster it would've been if the US had devoted resources to helping them instead of killing and dying in Vietnam and Korea and all their other little invasions and small wars.

Do you think they would have had a chance to overthrow these governments before the Soviet Union began to fall apart?

I don't think the Soviet Union would have fallen apart if it weren't for Eastern Europe's insistance on defying them.

Well, perhaps the loss of a few thousand people is worth it if you save millions of people who would otherwise have died at the hands of some brutal dictator?

Show me a regime that kills "millions" of people yet has a military comprised of just a few thousand.

What?! I'm saying that allowing sovereign nations to retain their sovereignty isn't always the best way to proceed. I'm not saying that we should solve every problem with bombs and guns. I'm saying that some problems can realistically only be solved with bombs and guns.

Okay

You can use diplomacy (useless against many dictators) or sanctions (more harm than good) all you want, but explain your lack of decisive military action to the millions who die before anything is really done.

The problem is no one is actually using these now-a-days. Hense your assumption that it won't work until military action is used (the bold part implies such), because you've never seen someone actually work it through before resorting to violence or having it messed up by the US or who-ever.

 

[klusener]

Let me remember you that US also use torture on their enemies, They also discriminate black people (They even used them as slaves...)... Should we invade or nuke america? what do you say?

Regarding discrimination, nowadays, the government doesn't mandate segregation or discrimination, just particular people. So you can't accuse the government for something they are not responsible for, I am sure every country has its share of racists.

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9023597/site/newsweek/

...conservative Christian leaders privately are warning that Republicans will lose evangelical votes next year if the Iraqi constitution enshrines Islamic law at the expense of religious freedom there

If this isn't the biggest load of hypocritical (fill in the blank). The article goes on to say:

As for Bush, he sets out this week on a three-city tour to try to shore up support for the war even as aides enunciate a somber message: that "keeping the enemy at bay won't be easy," as his communications director, Nicolle Devenish, put it.

The enemy is who exactly--the insurgents in Iraq? They wouldn't be there if we hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place you idiot (A.K.A. Bush)!

edit: BTW, did anyone catch the CNN Presents "Dead Wrong" last night? I only caught part of it, but it didn't look very favorable for the Bushies. Here's a link to the transcripts: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/21/cp.01.html

 

[Archon]

Again Archon... And who takes the decicion of who is removed with guns and bombs?? Why US...

I don't think any single country has the right to make this choice. I certainly don't agree with the Iraq war, because (among other things) there was a lack of consensus throughout the world. But making the leading countries of the world come to some reasonably complete consensus before an invasion can happen is a rather fair mechanism for deciding which leaders are to be overthrown.

 

[Archon]

If a dictator is killing millions of people on a regular basis and not doing anything outside of his country I would think his regime won't last longa anyways, if only because he's going to run out of people really really quickly.

So you would let the dictator run out of people...and then, after (but only after) he began to turn his attentions to other countries, you would intercede militarily? Explain your logic, because I really can't see how this is the better way.

There is enough historical evidence to show that brutal regimes can last a long time. Observe the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin. As you yourself said later in your post, he was able to trick most of his people into believing that he was a good leader.

Okay look, saying never use violence is too open-ended. The point is there is never a realistic example where it gets to the point military action is justified. You can easily imagine up some absolute horror and say "Nothing else would work" and you'd be right... but it wouldn't exist. There is always going to be a better way, one that is quite possibly more cost effective too. And I will gladly come up with some alternatives to any conflict you want.

First, I'd like you to explain why military action is impossible to justify, no matter how horrible the conditions in the offending country. Then, explain to me why you value the sovereignty of nations over the rights of the humans being abused by these nations (as your willingness to allow the dictator to kill millions of people seems to indicate).

Also, I'd like to know what you think of rebellions and internal revolutions. When is it justifiable for a rebellious element of society to fight (that is, kill) for its rights? Would an armed uprising, which, for the sake of argument, fired the first shots, be justifiable if the people saw themselves as oppressed?

Yeah, that would work. The problem is you'd never be able to pay 1 full time soldier for every 10 citizens in your country. You'd have the army mutinying on yourself because they're not living off of much more than the peasants because it's spread so thin and they, being the army, arn't producing anything themselves.

Again, I should have specified the realism part.

The ratio was completely arbitrary. Of course you can't have that sort of ration of soldiers to civilians, but that wasn't the point. The point is that even a civilian uprising with an enormous numerical advantage is going to have a hard time fighting against tanks, planes, advanced weaponry, etc. People just aren't going to throw away (not risk) their lives: the fear inspired by an obviously superior military is enough to quell many uprisings.

Everyone did. Only after his death did all his crimes come out. He was actually very clever about it.

And the millions of people whose neighbors, friends, and family members disappeared thought what?

None, that's why they're no longer communist, and they weren't invaded by a big bad democratic power to stop it. Now imagine how much faster it would've been if the US had devoted resources to helping them instead of killing and dying in Vietnam and Korea and all their other little invasions and small wars.

The point is that even though they wanted to be free, many people in Eastern Europe were unable to free themselves from Soviet domination. Yes, they might have succeeded earlier with help from the West. But how many people died under Stalin: it's not reasonable to say that Western aid would have allowed Soviet satellite countries to free themselves within a few years, right? Millions of people died during Stalin's reign alone. How would Western assistance have helped lower this number in any significant way?

I don't think the Soviet Union would have fallen apart if it weren't for Eastern Europe's insistance on defying them.

The fact remains that this happened almost 50 years after these countries were first placed within the Soviet sphere of influence/domination. How many people died in the interim?

Show me a regime that kills "millions" of people yet has a military comprised of just a few thousand.

I assumed you were referring to civilian casualties. How many Iraqi soldiers actually fought? How many deaths in Iraq were the result of civilian casualties of the invasion? No doubt Hussein had the ability to kill millions of people, even if he didn't. This doesn't mean that some vast and well-trained army must resist all invasions.

Okay
The problem is no one is actually using these now-a-days. Hense your assumption that it won't work until military action is used (the bold part implies such), because you've never seen someone actually work it through before resorting to violence or having it messed up by the US or who-ever.

Okay.
Diplomacy: Usually won't work with dictators who are already bent on killing millions of people. What would you have offered Hitler in return for his cessation of his murderous campaign against Jews and other minorities?

Economic Sanctions: Why should the dictator care? Anyway, economic sanctions tend to have a *slightly* detrimental effect on the health and prosperity of the general population. The dictator himself, of course, continues to live in luxury.

I don't think we should use military action first: we can try diplomacy and perhaps even sanctions. But I'm opposed to the statement that military action is never justified. Sometimes, it's the only reasonable path (that is, when you're concerned about human rights over the rights of sovereign nations).

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9039395/
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 2:48 p.m. ET Aug. 22, 2005

"Bush reaffirms commitment to defeat terrorists -
President voices dedication to war in Iraq, creating free societies"

I can't even get past the propagandistic title without angst before reading the propagandistic article!

SALT LAKE CITY - President George W. Bush defended the war in Iraq on Monday in the face of growing skepticism, asserting that "a policy of retreat and isolation will not bring us safety" from terrorism.

"Er..um...and to the contrary a policy of occupation will make us even less safe from terrorism--heheh" is what he should have said, our commander in chief, nice and safe with security around him in a nice and safe state like Utah. The article continues:

While the United States has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001, Bush said, "We're not yet safe. Terrorists in foreign lands still hope to attack our country. We must confront threats before they fully materialize."

"That's right, you elected me to make you safe, but I can't stop fear mongering...it's so fun, heheh."

 

[Archon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9039395/
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 2:48 p.m. ET Aug. 22, 2005

"Bush reaffirms commitment to defeat terrorists -
President voices dedication to war in Iraq, creating free societies"

I can't even get past the propagandistic title without angst before reading the propagandistic article!

Well, he was reaffirming his commitment to defeating terrorists, completing the war in Iraq, and creating free societies. So its not really propagandistic.

Since he's not actually doing any of the things he's supposedly committed to, we should call it a lie. I mean, he's obviously not committed to defeating the terrorists, and he obviously isn't dedicated to creating free societies.

"That's right, you elected me to make you safe, but I can't stop fear mongering...it's so fun, heheh."

Hey! You never know until you've tried it, right? He could have replaced his previous addictions with an addiction to fear mongering. It's not his fault. He just needs a good support group.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Hey! You never know until you've tried it, right? He could have replaced his previous addictions with an addiction to fear mongering. It's not his fault. He just needs a good support group.

Maybe he needs an intervention ... Everyone ready for the group hug.

 

[vanesch]

In effect, therefore, US showed that they really can't conceive of any other type of a society than a US with a bad president.
And for that reason alone, the US regime cannot be regarded as a competent player in international politics any longer.

Exactly my feeling ! Now, I'd say, the CURRENT US regime. I think the US has had smarter administrations in the past (light understatement )

 

[vanesch]

Answer me this: If, hypothetically, Hitler had contained his murder of Jews to Germany and had not invaded Poland or any other country, would you have defended German sovereignty? Don't you think there are situations in which invasion of a country which isn't being outwardly aggressive is justified?

Simply said: yes, I'd have defended Germany's souvereinity. That doesn't mean that using diplomatic means and so on, one could not put pressure on it, be a bit subversive, and so on, but it would have been an internal problem AS THERE ARE SO MANY ALL AROUND THE WORLD. After all, it would have been a local problem, just confined to one middle-sized country. It would have caused much less misery than what was caused by WWII. After all, exactly the same thing happened with other target groups in the USSR under Stalin, and nobody stopped him, right ? And rightly so, because no matter what misery he caused to a part of the Russian population, this was less evil than a total thermonuclear war.
The only "better" solution to this would be an international organisation such as the UN. But it isn't in the UN's charter to intervene in these situations if they are not invited by the country at hand. And in any case, the UN is dead now.

 

[arildno]

Let me remember you that US also use torture on their enemies, They also discriminate black people (They even used them as slaves...)... Should we invade or nuke america? what do you say?

There is, for example, no SYSTEMATIC form of torture going on in America, and discrimination, undoubtedly present, isn't systematic, either.

Rather, because Americans are committed to the idea that the government has no business regulating how private enterprises are run (a sentiment which on its own is not discriminatory towards anyone), it follows that in so far an employer happens personally a racist, discrimination may well flourish on his work-place.

 

[arildno]

It is crazy to let a fantasy construct like a "state" and the "sovereignty" of such a construct rule your behaviour in such a manner that you let real, human suffering flourish in peace in a place ruled by bandits.

 

[The Smoking Man]

And in any case, the UN is dead now.

Sadly only because the USA is using it as a tool of propaganda.

You didn't declare the US government dead after watergate or Iran/Contra.

Why do you say the UN is dead?

 

[Smurf]

So you would let the dictator run out of people...and then, after (but only after) he began to turn his attentions to other countries, you would intercede militarily? Explain your logic, because I really can't see how this is the better way.

If he ran out of people he wouldn't be able to intercede militarily. (That wasn't really a serious comment. Obviously that's not really going to happen)

There is enough historical evidence to show that brutal regimes can last a long time. Observe the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin. As you yourself said later in your post, he was able to trick most of his people into believing that he was a good leader.

And yet, for all of their crimes. War would not have helped the least. You know what the difference is between invading the USSR and invading Iran? If you invaded the USSR you would be hurt too. This is a very important, it's easy to say "Let's invade their homes to help them out because look at how horrible it is now!" but what if it was your land that was suddenly being subject to Shock and Awe and an unprecedented death rate? It's not that black and white.

First, I'd like you to explain why military action is impossible to justify, no matter how horrible the conditions in the offending country.

Because military action will never improve the regime. Not only because generally the worse a regime's human rights violations the more powerfull or capable of defending it's self it is, but also because military action, more often than not, will only create more strife in the area.

Then, explain to me why you value the sovereignty of nations over the rights of the humans being abused by these nations

What kind of a precedent do you think it would be setting, even if Iraq wasn't the mess it was now and people weren't still fighting in Afghanistan? Do you think Iran would be sitting around saying "Wow, look at the good job the US did in iraq. Well, let's scrap our nuke program because they're obviously the good guys!" I don't.

(as your willingness to allow the dictator to kill millions of people seems to indicate).

Show me a regime that kills "millions" of people that would have been helped by military action. USSR? Nope. Nazi Germany? Total death toll of WW2 was more than Germany's entire population at the time. Simply accepting Jewish immigrants in the 30s would have done more good. I doubt Saddam's toll goes into the millions.

Also, I'd like to know what you think of rebellions and internal revolutions. When is it justifiable for a rebellious element of society to fight (that is, kill) for its rights?

Always, so long as it's not "stupid" (i.e. We demand casual fridays! *stab*)

Would an armed uprising, which, for the sake of argument, fired the first shots, be justifiable if the people saw themselves as oppressed?

The people always have a right to overthrow a government when it becomes oppressive. It's when the organization that's rebelling starts violating human rights themselves that they leave the 'Insurgency' class and enter 'warlords fighting for power'.

The ratio was completely arbitrary. Of course you can't have that sort of ration of soldiers to civilians, but that wasn't the point. The point is that even a civilian uprising with an enormous numerical advantage is going to have a hard time fighting against tanks, planes, advanced weaponry, etc.

An insurgency is beating up the most technologically advanced government right now, and with 0 to little support from other developed nations.

And the millions of people whose neighbors, friends, and family members disappeared thought what?

I imagine many of them didn't know what to think, but were probably just as shocked as everyone else when Krushchev came out about Stalin in '54.

The point is that even though they wanted to be free, many people in Eastern Europe were unable to free themselves from Soviet domination. Yes, they might have succeeded earlier with help from the West. But how many people died under Stalin: it's not reasonable to say that Western aid would have allowed Soviet satellite countries to free themselves within a few years, right? Millions of people died during Stalin's reign alone. How would Western assistance have helped lower this number in any significant way?

Yes, I think if the US had adopted a much more passive policy towards the USSR it may not have been willing to hold on to it for quite so long simply because it would not view it as a necessary buffer against NATO. But now we're making big changes to history again, this is difficult to predict.

The fact remains that this happened almost 50 years after these countries were first placed within the Soviet sphere of influence/domination. How many people died in the interim?

I don't think nearly as many as you would like to believe. The worst aspect of Stalin's reign for which he is famed, the great purge, did not involve Eastern Europe. The Communist Bloc was not the death camp that Hitler had set up, most people who were killed were because they were a political figures or because they died in direct conflict with soviet troops during periods of strife.

I assumed you were referring to civilian casualties. How many Iraqi soldiers actually fought?

Doesn't matter, Iraqi's real combatants are still fighting and number much more.

Okay.
Diplomacy: Usually won't work with dictators who are already bent on killing millions of people. What would you have offered Hitler in return for his cessation of his murderous campaign against Jews and other minorities?

Hitler was already proceeding in a policy of foreign aggression. War was inevitable because Hitler wanted war.

Economic Sanctions: Why should the dictator care?

Because if used properly they can be very effective in creating unrest.

Anyway, economic sanctions tend to have a *slightly* detrimental effect on the health and prosperity of the general population. The dictator himself, of course, continues to live in luxury.

Unfortunately, yes. However, the dictator's lifestyle is irrelevant.

I don't think we should use military action first: we can try diplomacy and perhaps even sanctions. But I'm opposed to the statement that military action is never justified. Sometimes, it's the only reasonable path

I disagree.

(that is, when you're concerned about human rights over the rights of sovereign nations).

My concern for Soverignty rights is purely as a tool for human rights.

 

[vanesch]

But making the leading countries of the world come to some reasonably complete consensus before an invasion can happen is a rather fair mechanism for deciding which leaders are to be overthrown.

Yes, I'd be in favor of such an international organisation, a priori, but there are unsurmountable problems. Note that the UN doesn't do this: in its charter, there is no interference in internal affairs. However, there are a few problems. First of all, there shouldn't be a "few leading countries", but the entire world, represented. Problem is: many nations are not democratically represented, so the voice you'll hear is the voice of the leading minority which might, or might not, have a vested interest in "joining with the warmonger in return for favors (look at the campaign by US vs France to get votes on their side)". Second, even such world democratic representation if it were possible is only that: a democratic representation, and it isn't as such "a wise decision maker" (problem between plebicite versus representative democracy). And the final problem is: although on paper everybody may have his saying, as long as the real muscle belongs to one or a few countries, who will have to do what others have decided, they might, rightfully up to a point, decide that because it is THEIR weaponry, THEIR lives of soldiers and so on and a big part of THEIR MONEY, that it is up to THEM to finally decide - exactly what the US did.
So as long as the armies belong to nations, and not to the international organisation, this system will not work. And I don't think that the US will ever give up a large part of its military muscle to any international authority. Why would they ?
In fact, as long as such an international authority doesn't have the muscle itself, and isn't a true representation of the world population, guided by a wise constitutional charter, all of this is empty words, and it only serves as a kind of justification for the use of force by the nation(s) who has the muscle.
I'd even say that such an international, armed organisation would also be scary, because if it turns sour, and is hijacked by some or other interest group, now it is the entire world that is at its mercy: you can't run anymore from SUCH a dictatorship.
Maybe a solution would be that all countries ACCEPT in their national legislation, a veto right of the international institution. For instance, that a no-vote in something like the UN for the use of force would be legally BINDING for the military of all the nations involved, and that this has a higher level of binding than an order from the national president. If the top military in the major muscle countries are instilled with this, then there is some failsafe mechanism build in: The international organisation cannot "turn sour" because it cannot ORDER military action, but it has true authority in that it can order AGAINST military action which is legally binding for the generals of the armies involved, no matter what their national politicians tell them what to do.
Unfortunately I don't give it the slightest chance that the powerful nations at the moment accept such a proposition.

 

[vanesch]

Sadly only because the USA is using it as a tool of propaganda. You didn't declare the US government dead after watergate or Iran/Contra. Why do you say the UN is dead?

Ok, it is maybe not dead, but in a deep coma. It lost its credibility concerning its ability to decide over full scale external aggressions. Even though the voting didn't take place, it was clear that the war on Iraq would have been voted against (it would have been vetoed by at least 3 permanent members, and wouldn't even have gotten a majority in the first place).
It is like the authority of a parent who doesn't finally dare to say to his kid "don't hit your daddy" when he gets slapped in his face, because then you can still say that your kid hit you in the face, but didn't disobey you because you didn't tell him not to hit you. Point is: you don't have any authority left in practice.
As the ONLY function of the UN is to regulate international open conflict between member nations, and it didn't manage in doing so, it is now reduced to the status of a British club of old gentlemen, chatting with each other.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ok, it is maybe not dead, but in a deep coma. It lost its credibility concerning its ability to decide over full scale external aggressions. Even though the voting didn't take place, it was clear that the war on Iraq would have been voted against (it would have been vetoed by at least 3 permanent members, and wouldn't even have gotten a majority in the first place).
It is like the authority of a parent who doesn't finally dare to say to his kid "don't hit your daddy" when he gets slapped in his face, because then you can still say that your kid hit you in the face, but didn't disobey you because you didn't tell him not to hit you. Point is: you don't have any authority left in practice.
As the ONLY function of the UN is to regulate international open conflict between member nations, and it didn't manage in doing so, it is now reduced to the status of a British club of old gentlemen, chatting with each other.

The function of the UN is not to fight wars but to keep the peace ... Read the Charter.

Why is it that you assume the reason for the UN is to wage wars?

The UN is based in the http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm forsaking war and removing the need for war and 'invasion'.

 

[vanesch]

The function of the UN is not to fight wars but to keep the peace ... Read the Charter.

Why is it that you assume the reason for the UN is to wage wars?

Exactly, I'm not saying the opposite: its purpose is to regulate international conflicts ; meaning: WHEN two member states go at war, to intervene. This intervention, by itself, can of course be to build a coalition to oust the warmonger (and as such, do some war acts). The first gulf war fell into that scope.

The Iraq war was NOT stopped by the UN ; it didn't even vote on it, because if it voted, it would have voted AGAINST and it wouldn't have changed a thing. What happened was that a few member states (the US, UK and a few others) abused the superficial authority of the UN to justify their individual war act, but the point is, the UN couldn't stop it and didn't even try to do so because then its loss of authority would have been obvious.
So the only thing the existence of the UN managed to do was for a few member states to abuse its non-existant authority to justify waging a war, exactly the thing the UN was designed for to prohibit ! That's why I said that the UN is in a deep coma.

 

[Skyhunter]

Been away for awhile, but I certainly found this thread and the links provided to be most informative.

A few points I would like to make are;

The Taliban had been given an ultimatum by the US under the Clinton administration that they would be held responsible for any further attacks by Al-Qaeda against the US. In February 2001, when the investigation concluded that the USS Cole bombing was the work of AQ, I would have supported going into Afghanistan. This in my opinion would have been a response to a direct attack on the US.

Bush's response was some macho statement about swatting flies.

As for national sovereignty; it is an illusion. No nation is sovereign because it does not represent all of mankind. Until we have one government that upholds the rights of all people we will have war. Because "sovereign nations" have the right to wage war against other "sovereign nations."

The examples used of Stalin and Hitler killing millions as justification are overlooking the fact that most of the world was unaware of the atrocities carried out under these leaders until well after the crimes had been committed. Most did not know about or believe the reports of the holocaust until after the surrender of Germany. Even those who knew what was happening had no idea of the scale of the holocaust.

The UN is not dead, weak and wounded, but not dead. However, with John Bolton there now with his foot on the throat it probably won't survive much longer.

 

[Burnsys]

There is, for example, no SYSTEMATIC form of torture going on in America, and discrimination, undoubtedly present, isn't systematic, either.

Rather, because Americans are committed to the idea that the government has no business regulating how private enterprises are run (a sentiment which on its own is not discriminatory towards anyone), it follows that in so far an employer happens personally a racist, discrimination may well flourish on his work-place.

http://www.amnesty.ie/user/content/view/full/2103
USA: Interrogation techniques amount to torture
Coercive interrogation methods endorsed by members of the US government amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and violate international law and the USA's treaty obligations, Amnesty International said today, as it called on the USA to end its practice of holding detainees incommunicado and in secret detention.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lawg.org/misc/Publications-manuals.htm
From 1982-1991 the School of the Americas used 7 U. S. Army intelligence training manuals which advocated various forms of torture.

The government has finally admitted what human-rights activists have charged for more than a decade: manuals used by the U.S. Army School of the Americas between 1982 and 1991 recommended blackmail, torture and murder of insurgents.

One manual suggested a response to confidential informants who don’t cooperate with a government’s red squads: “Cause the arrest of the employee’s parents, imprison the employee or give him a beating.” Cooperation secured, the informant may recommend “neutralizing” targets, the manual added. “Some examples of these targets are governmental officials, political leaders, and members of the infrastructure.”

The school, located at Fort Benning, Georgia, has trained 60,000 Latin American military officers, including the late Salvadoran death-squad leader Roberto D’Aubuisson and imprisoned Panamanian strongman Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega. Another Panamanian graduate, appearing in the 1995 documentary film Inside the School of the Assassins, said the school used homeless Panamanian children as test subjects in training on torture, including electric shock.
-----------------------------------------------------

No discrimination? just say: Islam, or midle eastern... or Iranian...

 

[Archon]

If he ran out of people he wouldn't be able to intercede militarily. (That wasn't really a serious comment. Obviously that's not really going to happen)

But you would let the dictator proceed as he wished, as long as he didn't show any signs of outward (expansionistic) aggression?

And yet, for all of their crimes. War would not have helped the least. You know what the difference is between invading the USSR and invading Iran? If you invaded the USSR you would be hurt too. This is a very important, it's easy to say "Let's invade their homes to help them out because look at how horrible it is now!" but what if it was your land that was suddenly being subject to Shock and Awe and an unprecedented death rate? It's not that black and white.

The USSR just happens to be a useful example of a dictator's ability to remain popular in spite of any mass-murder or extermination campaigns he may be waging. I'm not really saying we should have invaded the Soviet Union. But you can't rely on the people to oust a dictator like this: they don't have the objective information that outsiders do.

Because military action will never improve the regime. Not only because generally the worse a regime's human rights violations the more powerfull or capable of defending it's self it is, but also because military action, more often than not, will only create more strife in the area.

Remember Hitler? Personally, I think that military action improved his regime (in the long run--ignore East Germany). The fact that he attacked first is irrelevant: the effects of war wouldn't really have been any different had the war started with an Allied invasion.

Imagine what would have happened had Hitler finished killing German Jews before he invaded Poland, with no military interference. The same World War II would have happened, except that it would have started later and more Jews would likely be dead. Yay for sovereignty!

What kind of a precedent do you think it would be setting, even if Iraq wasn't the mess it was now and people weren't still fighting in Afghanistan? Do you think Iran would be sitting around saying "Wow, look at the good job the US did in iraq. Well, let's scrap our nuke program because they're obviously the good guys!" I don't.

No, they wouldn't. But do you know why they wouldn't be saying this? The only reason a country would need to fear military action is if they were taking part in human rights violations. I don't envision arbitrary attacks by a single country: if there was some international governing body, similar to the U.N., then the actions of leaders like Bush would be prevented. Iran wouldn't have any reason to make nuclear weapons unless they expected to be invaded, which would only happen with the existence of extreme abuse.

Show me a regime that kills "millions" of people that would have been helped by military action. USSR? Nope. Nazi Germany? Total death toll of WW2 was more than Germany's entire population at the time. Simply accepting Jewish immigrants in the 30s would have done more good. I doubt Saddam's toll goes into the millions.

Like I said before: had Hitler not invaded Poland, had he simply confined his holocaust to German Jews, he would have been free (under your system) to kill or expel every Jew from Germany. Then, he could have invaded Poland and started World War II. So you end up with the death toll of World War II, plus the death toll of his free operations before the war. How is this better?

How was it better to allow Hitler to make the first move? His armies began the war on the offensive, while the Allies were pushed back. If the Allies had invaded Germany after one of Hitler's peaceful "acquisitions," could we not have saved many lives (soldiers as well as Jews and minorities in countries Hitler ended up successfully invading)?


Always, so long as it's not "stupid" (i.e. We demand casual fridays! *stab*)
The people always have a right to overthrow a government when it becomes oppressive. It's when the organization that's rebelling starts violating human rights themselves that they leave the 'Insurgency' class and enter 'warlords fighting for power'.

An insurgency is beating up the most technologically advanced government right now, and with 0 to little support from other developed nations.

This example doesn't apply: I'm talking about an internal uprising, not resistance to an invasion. If people in the U.S. rose up against the government, I doubt that government would be willing to give up. The civilians would be facing the full might of the U.S. army. Anyway, you can't measure the insurgents' effectiveness in terms of U.S. soldiers killed: a common goal among the insurgents is to reinstate some form of non-Democratic form of government. If Iraq becomes a Democracy, they will have failed.

Yes, I think if the US had adopted a much more passive policy towards the USSR it may not have been willing to hold on to it for quite so long simply because it would not view it as a necessary buffer against NATO. But now we're making big changes to history again, this is difficult to predict.

Okay.

I don't think nearly as many as you would like to believe.

It just so happens that I was born in one of these countries. I'm not "inflating" the death toll so I'll feel better, you know...

The worst aspect of Stalin's reign for which he is famed, the great purge, did not involve Eastern Europe. The Communist Bloc was not the death camp that Hitler had set up, most people who were killed were because they were a political figures or because they died in direct conflict with soviet troops during periods of strife.

And what about the millions of people who lived their entire lives under what were effectively dictatorships? What about the widespread starvation and poverty? Genocide isn't the only kind of human rights abuse.

Hitler was already proceeding in a policy of foreign aggression. War was inevitable because Hitler wanted war.

I didn't ask about war. I asked about the Holocaust. What diplomatic method would you have used to convince Hitler to stop killing Jews?

Because if used properly they can be very effective in creating unrest.

You mean like the feeling of unrest that toppeled Stalin's Soviet Union when his people were starving? Exactly what sorts of economic sanctions are you envisioning?

I disagree.

Fair enough.

My concern for Soverignty rights is purely as a tool for human rights.

But you seem to place the sovereignty of nations above human rights, ie you would not support military intervention in spite of the level of (hypothetical) human rights abuses occurring in a country, as long as that country remained externally peaceful.

 

[Smurf]

But you would let the dictator proceed as he wished, as long as he didn't show any signs of outward (expansionistic) aggression?

I've tried to make a distinction between "Not invading" and "not doing anything" I am fully for covert operations and propoganda and sanctions and blah blee blah blah.

The USSR just happens to be a useful example of a dictator's ability to remain popular in spite of any mass-murder or extermination campaigns he may be waging. I'm not really saying we should have invaded the Soviet Union. But you can't rely on the people to oust a dictator like this: they don't have the objective information that outsiders do.

And Yeah, dictators will be popular in spite of everything. But you yourself would not have invaded the soviet union, so this is a moot point.

I'm curious though, what exactly do you mean by objective information?

Remember Hitler? Personally, I think that military action improved his regime (in the long run--ignore East Germany).

No. Hitler's regime died with Hitler. What exists now is the fourth Reich (metaphorically speaking), it is a different regime. You wouldn't say that France is the same regime as it was in the 1400's just because it occupies much of the same territory.
definition

The fact that he attacked first is irrelevant: the effects of war wouldn't really have been any different had the war started with an Allied invasion.

and how do you justify that claim?

Imagine what would have happened had Hitler finished killing German Jews before he invaded Poland, with no military interference. The same World War II would have happened, except that it would have started later and more Jews would likely be dead. Yay for sovereignty!

I'm imagining, but I see no basis in reality how Hitler could exterminate all the Jews instantaneously... or are you suggesting it would take a matter of time and that the world would stop changing while he did that? Do you know the figure of how many German Jews survived as it was? Excuse my sarcastic tone, I can't help it sometimes.

No, they wouldn't. But do you know why they wouldn't be saying this? The only reason a country would need to fear military action is if they were taking part in human rights violations. I don't envision arbitrary attacks by a single country: if there was some international governing body, similar to the U.N., then the actions of leaders like Bush would be prevented. Iran wouldn't have any reason to make nuclear weapons unless they expected to be invaded, which would only happen with the existence of extreme abuse.

I don't really see your point here. There have been many nations invaded that didn't have severe human rights violations. Is this you're "In my world" scenario? Do you agree then, that the invasion of Iraq would have only hastened Iran's nuclear program regardless of any degree of success?

Like I said before: had Hitler not invaded Poland, had he simply confined his holocaust to German Jews, he would have been free (under your system) to kill or expel every Jew from Germany. Then, he could have invaded Poland and started World War II. So you end up with the death toll of World War II, plus the death toll of his free operations before the war. How is this better?

All you've done is said "imagine" and assumed that it would be worse if he did one at a time instead of both at once... How is it worse?

What would you have done if you were the UK or France? (ignoring the little detail that you wouldn't have known about it at the time)

How was it better to allow Hitler to make the first move? His armies began the war on the offensive, while the Allies were pushed back. If the Allies had invaded Germany after one of Hitler's peaceful "acquisitions," could we not have saved many lives (soldiers as well as Jews and minorities in countries Hitler ended up successfully invading)?

First of all, if you invaded in response to one of his aquisitions you would be doing it in defence of another sovereign nation... Which is not what we are arguing here. Secondly, you are assuming that Germany would have been easily defeated. It's possible, but take into account that Germany lost in 45 after 6 long years of fighting on several fronts and only after the Allies... I digress, we can talk in the ww2 thread if you really want to.

This example doesn't apply: I'm talking about an internal uprising, not resistance to an invasion. If people in the U.S. rose up against the government, I doubt that government would be willing to give up. The civilians would be facing the full might of the U.S. army.

Okay, but history is still full of superpowers and their militaries being defeated at home and abroad by civilian uprisings.

Anyway, you can't measure the insurgents' effectiveness in terms of U.S. soldiers killed: a common goal among the insurgents is to reinstate some form of non-Democratic form of government. If Iraq becomes a Democracy, they will have failed.

I have yet to here anything Anti-democratic about any insurgency group. This is heresay.

And what about the millions of people who lived their entire lives under what were effectively dictatorships? What about the widespread starvation and poverty? Genocide isn't the only kind of human rights abuse.

Okay. Discussing the USSR is redundant though since we won't find someone who thinks invading was a good idea.

I didn't ask about war. I asked about the Holocaust. What diplomatic method would you have used to convince Hitler to stop killing Jews?

I don't really think there's anything I could have done aside from actually allowing Jewish immigration from Germany, encouraging it even. Discussing Hitler's early years is complicated as everyone was really doing everything wrong from the very start.

You mean like the feeling of unrest that toppeled Stalin's Soviet Union when his people were starving? Exactly what sorts of economic sanctions are you envisioning?

Of course not, sanctions wouldn't even touch a country as self sufficient as Russia/USSR. But once again, you wouldn't invade them anyways, so this is redundant.

But you seem to place the sovereignty of nations above human rights, ie you would not support military intervention in spite of the level of (hypothetical) human rights abuses occurring in a country, as long as that country remained externally peaceful.

I do not mean to say this, I simply view military intervention as counter-productive towards human rights. I'm not at my peak right now so my arguments are becoming garbled, I appologise.

 

[SOS2008]

Well, he was reaffirming his commitment to defeating terrorists, completing the war in Iraq, and creating free societies. So its not really propagandistic.

Since he's not actually doing any of the things he's supposedly committed to, we should call it a lie. I mean, he's obviously not committed to defeating the terrorists, and he obviously isn't dedicated to creating free societies.


Hey! You never know until you've tried it, right? He could have replaced his previous addictions with an addiction to fear mongering. It's not his fault. He just needs a good support group.

You are right that either way it's a bunch of lies. Nonetheless, the interchanging use of "war on terror" or "terrorists" with the invasion of Iraq has been ongoing. And President Bush implied yesterday that Iraq attacked us on September 11. Yes, implied, but subliminal propaganda can be very effective, no?

 

[Smurf]

What did he say when he implied that SOS?

 

[Astronuc]

I have seen recently that the US Army staff is planning for 4 more years in Iraq, and then what? Four more years after that.

I suppose that the next Replican president can appoint George Bush govenor of Iraq.

It's certainly easy to support a war, when one's life is not endangered by it.

Bush's version of Patton's comment - "You don't survive by dying for your country, you let other people die for their country."

Bush and Cheney will laugh their way to an oil company and millions of dollars, and the young vets will get . . . .

 

[SOS2008]

What did he say when he implied that SOS?

I'm referring to the speech made yesterday in Idaho. Here is a link to read the entire speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050824.html

Our nation is engaged in a global war on terror that affects the safety and security of every American. In Iraq...

...Since September the 11th, 2001, more than 243,000 members of the National Guard have been mobilized for various missions in the war on terror. Idaho now has a higher percentage of its Guard forces mobilized than any other state. (Applause.) At this moment, more than 1,700 soldiers of the Idaho Guard are serving in Iraq.

...Your service is needed in these dangerous times. We remain a nation at war. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001...

...One of the most important battlefronts in this war on terror is Iraq...

...The battle lines in Iraq are now clearly drawn for the world to see, and there is no middle ground. Transforming a country that was ruled by an oppressive dictator who sponsored terror...

...Since the morning of September the 11th, we have known that the war on terror required great sacrifice, as well. In this war, we have said farewell to some very good men and women, including 491 heroes of the National Guard and Reserves...

As posted above by another member, you can count for yourself the frequent references to 9-11 in this speech defending the invasion of Iraq (and a few other things you might note and feel fear of).

 

[Smurf]

As posted above by another member, you can count for yourself the frequent references to 9-11 in this speech defending the invasion of Iraq (and a few other things you might note and feel fear of).

Yup, that's full of it alright.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Extreme pacifism isn't about number crunching. On physics forums, it's understandable that people are evaluating the issue mathematically. Unfortunately, treating people like numbers is the problem. Complete pacifism is an emotional stance based on ideals that value all individual life - that includes the life of your enemies. I do not speak out against WW2, but I will not say it was justified.

Putting people on paper and evaluating lives based on how many you can save diminishes the very nature of life. Pacifism isn't a mathematical argument - it is an emotional state that can be reached through individual reflection, and it does not have to be religious. I find it difficult to argue about war because I think being pacifist is something one has to discover.

I was against the war from the start; however, I don't take polls on the war seriously anymore. The american population has been changing its mind on the war continuously. If the adminstration was competent, the war wouldn't have even started. War is the solution for people who lack the intellect to pursue non-violent means of action.

 

[BobG]

No, they wouldn't. But do you know why they wouldn't be saying this? The only reason a country would need to fear military action is if they were taking part in human rights violations. I don't envision arbitrary attacks by a single country: if there was some international governing body, similar to the U.N., then the actions of leaders like Bush would be prevented. Iran wouldn't have any reason to make nuclear weapons unless they expected to be invaded, which would only happen with the existence of extreme abuse.

Iraq went to war with Iran (and Kuwait) because of human rights violations in Iran (and Kuwait)?

Or were you suggesting that if there were a strong international governing body, Iran and Kuwait wouldn't have had to fear being invaded by Iraq. (I assume the problem of a weak international governing body will be resolved this fall, when Bolton present's the US plan to remake the UN into a strong international body that fully supports the US).

Because if used properly they can be very effective in creating unrest.

You mean like the feeling of unrest that toppeled Stalin's Soviet Union when his people were starving? Exactly what sorts of economic sanctions are you envisioning?

Sanctions against Iraq had nothing to do with improving the life of Iraqis - they were to reduce the threat that Iraq could mount against neighboring countries. They accomplished what they were supposed to do.

The side effect of making life so much worse for the average Iraqi citizen is why the sanctions were controversial. It becomes a balancing act between what's worse for Iraqi citizens and what's more dangerous for citizens in neighboring countries.

It's a valid argument over whether the cost of sanctions for Iraqi citizens was too high to be justifiable. It's a fact that sanctions did reduce the threat Iraq presented to its neighbors (Duelfer report, the Senate's report on Iraqi pre-war intel, etc.).

 

[The Smoking Man]

I was against the war from the start; however, I don't take polls on the war seriously anymore. The american population has been changing its mind on the war continuously. If the adminstration was competent, the war wouldn't have even started. War is the solution for people who lack the intellect to pursue non-violent means of action.

And people who assume that the UN shirked it's responsibility over not providing an excuse for violent retribution do not understand the purpose of the UN.

It was not set up to ally soldiers or armies into forces. It was set up to do away with the need for war.

When one reads 1441 in terms of the charter, any action taken CAN NOT mean invasion until all other means have been exhausted.

The day that the UN had to pull weapons inspectors from Iraq to facilitate an invasion by the USA was the day the USA violated the Charter ... the very foundation and purpose ... of the UN.