|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
 Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin  [Re: Madtowntripper]
#1524120 - 05/06/03 09:39 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
He vetoes any stories he doesnt like.
Seems to happen in the west a lot too. The last figures I read were the BBC allowed 2% dissenting views during the Iraq conflict while ABC allowed a whopping 7% of airtime to dissenting views.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
 Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
|
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Xlea321]
#1524260 - 05/06/03 10:48 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Please. Tell me you have trouble finding an anti-war stance in ANY media outlet and I'll call you a liar....
--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway
If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy
He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Phred]
#1524329 - 05/06/03 11:18 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I ask again, then -- if it was wrong for the US and England and Australia and Spain et al to resume hostilities, does it not remain wrong regardless of how many countries say it is right?
You yourself have used the phrase "in this case" countless times in this thread. In this case, what would have legitimated the action would have been a specific and explicit authorization from the Security Council. It would have been as simple as that. Had clear and compelling PROOF (which is STILL not present) of weapons of mass destruction been presented, it would have been politically impossible for any of the permanent members to veto such as resolution even if they had wanted to.
The reason a consensus is important is in order to prevent a single country or coterie of countries from making a blatant resource grab. If a nation's sovereignty is going to be violated in the interest of some higher concern, such as stopping crimes against humanity, there had at least better be a consensus on the issue. Of course, on the other hand, we could scuttle the notion of national sovereignty altogether. If that's what you want, we could certainly discuss the pros and cons of such a move. The problem comes when you defend this kind of selective application of the rule of sovereignty without calling for some kind of international agreement over the cases in which it is to be done. Without any such framework, the situation once again devolves into a case of might makes right.
So you assert -- with merely your personal bias as "evidence" -- that the Iraqi people will never run Iraq; that it will instead remain a "colony" of the US?
Oh no, there will be a nice puppet regime of all Iraqi faces "ruling" the country sooner or later. They will not be democratically elected, however. And they will allow the US to maintain as many bases in Iraq as the US wants, and they will calibrate oil prices and production in accordance with the US's wishes. This is all that matters in terms of US interests. Maintaining some kind of Raj-style colony does not serve US interests, and so that will not happen. The US couldn't give a shit about actual representative government in the region--they've happily done business with the Saudis in the past, and they're happily doing business with authoritarian regimes in Qatar and the UAE (to say nothing of Pakistan) as we speak. The US happily does business with whatever regimes are willing to cooperate with US interests, regardless of whether they are tyrannical or free. This is Realpolitik and it has been the cornerstone of US foreign policy since at least the late 1960s and early 1970s. The key requisite here is "cooperating with US interests," not "being free and democratic."
If you and I -- who disagree on nearly everything else of substance -- are in agreement on the criteria, why do you think any other body of reasonable people would not be, regardless of who might comprise the members of that body?
The question is not merely who is tyrannical, it is who is so tyrannical and dangerous that they must be deposed by a full force invasion. There are dozens of tyrannical and/or authoritarian regimes in the world today. A great many of them, unlike Iraq, actually have the capacity to fight back. A few of them have genuine, honest-to-goodness, readily deployable weapons of mass destruction. Trying to depose them all would result in perpetual war. Local wars have the possiblity of escalating into regional conflicts. Regional conflicts with major powers involved can lead to worldwide conflict. Worldwide conflict in an age of nuclear weapons and cheap and readily available Bio and Chem warfare is something that only a madman could desire. How do we decide who gets the axe? You don't have an answer to that question. You believe the UN is worthless so obviously that option is out. What's left? Logically, the biggest kid on the block, the US. Once again, "might makes right."
So you claim Afghanistan is a "quasi-colony" of the United States? By what criteria?
Simple, it doesn't have a military of its own. The nominal president is not recognized anywhere where there isn't an American military presence--that is to say, in most of the country outside of Kabul.
I ask for the third time -- if an action is wrong, by what magical process does the approval of a certain threshhold number of people transform it into something right?
And I ask YOU for the umpteenth time, why is using public money to feed orphans here at home evil and using it to fight foreign wars against nations that haven't attacked us acceptable?
Edited by EchoVortex (05/06/03 11:22 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Madtowntripper]
#1524556 - 05/06/03 12:57 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Please. Tell me you have trouble finding an anti-war stance in ANY media outlet and I'll call you a liar....
Just going on the figures the media analyst David Miller came up with. 2% dissenting views allowed on the BBC. Not what I'd call overwhelming left wing bias...
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: EchoVortex]
#1524878 - 05/06/03 03:01 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
EchoVortex writes:
In this case, what would have legitimated the action would have been a specific and explicit authorization from the Security Council. It would have been as simple as that. Had clear and compelling PROOF (which is STILL not present) of weapons of mass destruction been presented, it would have been politically impossible for any of the permanent members to veto such as resolution even if they had wanted to.
Unfortunately, clear and compelling proof that Hussein had not abided by any of the conditions of the ceasefire did in fact exist, but certain veto-holding members of the Security Council chose to act as if it didn't. As you are well aware, there were more conditions to the ceasefire than the requirement for Hussein to provide credible and verifiable proof of the destructions of his WMD stash and the facilities to make more. It is the condition that received the most attention, but it was certainly not the only condition.
Furthermore, as you are also aware, there have been cases of action which on the face of it appeared to violate UN article 51 (Kosovo, Haiti, various African actions and others) which were later retroactively declared legitimate by the UN because of humanitarian issues.
There are intelligent people (with far more knowledge of precedent and interpretation of international law than either of us) who are on opposing sides of this issue. I repeat, you believe what your International Law interpreters say, I believe what mine say.
The reason a consensus is important is in order to prevent a single country or coterie of countries from making a blatant resource grab. If a nation's sovereignty is going to be violated in the interest of some higher concern, such as stopping crimes against humanity, there had at least better be a consensus on the issue.
So you missed my earlier proviso -- "Only if they do just that and no more. Liberate the enslaved country, allow the citizens to elect their own non-totalitarian leaders, then withdraw." What resources where there to grab in Kosovo? In Haiti? In Afghanistan?
Simple, it doesn't have a military of its own.
Oh? Who are those armed Afghani guys accompanying UN soldiers on their raids of suspected Al-Qaeda hideouts?
The nominal president is not recognized anywhere where there isn't an American military presence--that is to say, in most of the country outside of Kabul.
Ah. See, I didn't know this. I thought the UN had recognized the Afghani Interim authority. Can you provide a source for me that shows which countries have refused recognition of the Afghani Interim Authority?
Oh no, there will be a nice puppet regime of all Iraqi faces "ruling" the country sooner or later.
Similar to the "puppet regimes" in Japan and Germany, I presume.
They will not be democratically elected, however.
According to your psychic second cousin, I presume.
And they will allow the US to maintain as many bases in Iraq as the US wants, and they will calibrate oil prices and production in accordance with the US's wishes.
If the new government of Iraq chooses to do this out of gratitude or whatever other motive, and the constitution of the new Iraq permits it, then it is of course their right.
The US couldn't give a shit about actual representative government in the region--they've happily done business with the Saudis in the past, and they're happily doing business with authoritarian regimes in Qatar and the UAE (to say nothing of Pakistan) as we speak. The US happily does business with whatever regimes are willing to cooperate with US interests, regardless of whether they are tyrannical or free.
And this makes the US different from the dozens of other countries doing business with the Saudis and Qatar and the UAE et al exactly how?
The question is not merely who is tyrannical, it is who is so tyrannical and dangerous that they must be deposed by a full force invasion.
I don't say that anyone who fits such a description must be deposed, merely that any free country has the right to depose him.
And I ask YOU for the umpteenth time, why is using public money to feed orphans here at home evil and using it to fight foreign wars against nations that haven't attacked us acceptable?
Well, we seem to be accusing each other of being hypocritical. You feel since I say any free country may or may not choose to assist oppressed people in another country to throw off their chains, then my position that the government of that same free country may not forcibly violate the rights of its own citizens is hypocritical. I say that since you believe that the government may force its citizens to assist others whether they want to or not, your position that the citizenry must not be allowed to choose to assist others in throwing off their chains is hypocritical.
Why don't we leave it to the readers to decide which position (if either) is hypocritical?
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Phred]
#1525049 - 05/06/03 03:52 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Who are those armed Afghani guys accompanying UN soldiers on their raids of suspected Al-Qaeda hideouts?
You mean the northern alliance warlords? That's the afghan "army" is it? 
Ah. See, I didn't know this. I thought the UN had recognized the Afghani Interim authority. Can you provide a source for me that shows which countries have refused recognition of the Afghani Interim Authority?
As usual, you're willfully misunderstanding echos point. Karzai has zero authority in Afghanistan without the american army. The vast bulk of Afghanistan is under the control of the nightmarish Northern Alliance warlords.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: EchoVortex]
#1525178 - 05/06/03 04:55 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
EchoVortex writes:
The nominal president is not recognized anywhere where there isn't an American military presence--that is to say, in most of the country outside of Kabul.
Whoops. I misread that to say "countries", hence my confusion in my last post.
Okay, you say that Afghanistan is a quasi-colony of the US because it has no military and the Interim Authority is ignored by large parts of the populace?
You are aware of course that the Interim Authority was first ratified by the UN in Bonn, and later confirmed by the Loya Jirga?
Are you saying that directives given by US military commanders are paid more heed in Afghanistan than those given by the Interim Authority? Sounds to me that it is not so much that Afghanistan is a quasi-colony of the US as it is a factionalized region. This is nothing new for Afghanistan, of course.
pinky
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Bulk Cannabis Seeds 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
exclusive58
Diploid
SirTripAlot
BleaK
Disco Cat
wingnutx