NationStates Jolt Archive

Iraq is now quite obviously turning into one of the bigger debacles of the past few decades. IF things continue to escalate, we can only imagine the reprecussions. It seems like the US policy of interventionism may be on its last legs; Iraq is just not looking good.

So my question would be- what should we do with tyrannical, oppressive regimes?

Personally, I think that there is a clear difference between tolerable regimes and those that cannot be legitimized at an international level. These kinds of nations must not be tolerated or dealt with. While diplomacy and economic actions are (perhaps) good first choices, I do believe that invasion and toppling of these tyrranical parties is acceptable, and perhaps even a morally necessary action. I don't see how we can simply allow things like genocide, mass murder, repression of women, or any other serious oppression to go on. I do think there is a time and place of action. I think that Iraq, even without the threat of WMDs or terrorism, was one of those places. However, obviously the war went totally ass backwards and Bush kind of fucked it up. Still, these invasions should not be totally dismissed. What do you think?

Either invade them all, or impose such heavy sanctions that they're forced out of power. I'd like to see a world leader who does take them on. But I guess it's just a fantasy.

So my question would be- what should we do with tyrannical, oppressive regimes?
Bush should be flogged, shot, hung and quarterd.

Iraq is now quite obviously turning into one of the bigger debacles of the past few decades. IF things continue to escalate, we can only imagine the reprecussions. It seems like the US policy of interventionism may be on its last legs; Iraq is just not looking good.

So my question would be- what should we do with tyrannical, oppressive regimes?

Personally, I think that there is a clear difference between tolerable regimes and those that cannot be legitimized at an international level. These kinds of nations must not be tolerated or dealt with. While diplomacy and economic actions are (perhaps) good first choices, I do believe that invasion and toppling of these tyrranical parties is acceptable, and perhaps even a morally necessary action. I don't see how we can simply allow things like genocide, mass murder, repression of women, or any other serious oppression to go on. I do think there is a time and place of action. I think that Iraq, even without the threat of WMDs or terrorism, was one of those places. However, obviously the war went totally ass backwards and Bush kind of f--- it up. Still, these invasions should not be totally dismissed. What do you think?
You are talking about an impossible ideal. Too many intolerants, not enough money or manpower.

Iraq was wrong.

You are talking about an impossible ideal. Too many intolerants, not enough money or manpower.

Iraq was wrong.

So thus you consider it morally acceptable to allow oppresive regimes to reign unopposed? I don't think simply saying 'Iraq was wrong' really does justice to the situation.

So my question would be- what should we do with tyrannical, oppressive regimes?

Let them take over and kill everyone.

So my question would be- what should we do with tyrannical, oppressive regimes?
Bush should be flogged, shot, hung and quarterd.

you should have that done to u. u only hate bush because you don't understand why he started the war. i don't think anyone did. they keep almost 70 % of military intelligence secret so for all we know they could have found millions of WOMD but they wouldnt tell ppl because it would scare the hell out of everyone. so bush is really keeping us feeling safe even if he loses his presidency in the next vote.

Iraq is certainly descending into a pit, mainly because Rumsfeld didn't listen to the people who knew that it was going to take overwhelming force to pacify the place. Let me say this--I didn't want to go in there in the first place. I would have just as soon increased the no-fly zones from the north and the south, allowing the Kurds and the Shi'ites to form their own independent societies free from Saddam's interference, tightening the noose until eventually Saddam was gone.

But the problem right now is that we don't have enough people in there. I don't like the idea of sending in more US troops--frankly, we don't have them to send, and the ones there need to be rotated out--but if there isn't some kind of reinforcement, and soon, then we'll lose the place altogether and we will have succeeded in screwing up yet another country. This one will sting all the more because we were lied to by the people making the decisions.

you should have that done to u. u only hate bush because you don't understand why he started the war. i don't think anyone did. they keep almost 70 % of military intelligence secret so for all we know they could have found millions of WOMD but they wouldnt tell ppl because it would scare the hell out of everyone. so bush is really keeping us feeling safe even if he loses his presidency in the next vote.

Yes, because Bush never tries to keep people in a state of perpetual fear. And of course he found WMD's (you don't need to abreviate the of), he just decided to not tell anyone so he'd face the wrath of voters.

And to actually comment on intelligence, i don't know if sanctions would work. They didn't work in Iraq, nor have they worked in Cuba. (Although they did help fight apartheid). The whole concept of sanctions is to a certain extent rather twisted. They inheritantly harm those who can least defend themselves (the poor). It rarely harm those who control the country and doesn't neccessarily lead to revolution.

Yes, because Bush never tries to keep people in a state of perpetual fear. And of course he found WMD's (you don't need to abreviate the of), he just decided to not tell anyone so he'd face the wrath of voters.

And to actually comment on intelligence, i don't know if sanctions would work. They didn't work in Iraq, nor have they worked in Cuba. (Although they did help fight apartheid). The whole concept of sanctions is to a certain extent rather twisted. They inheritantly harm those who can least defend themselves (the poor). It rarely harm those who control the country and doesn't neccessarily lead to revolution.

YOu're mostly right, but sanctions have actually shown an ok level of success. From 92 to 97, roughly 50% of UN sanctions had some level of success. This doesn't seem that great, but when you actually consider that it doesn't cost the nations very much, it looks a little better. But I think virtually everyone can acknowledge that sanctions are not an effective foreign policy.

You are talking about an impossible ideal. Too many intolerants, not enough money or manpower.

Iraq was wrong.

So thus you consider it morally acceptable to allow oppresive regimes to reign unopposed? I don't think simply saying 'Iraq was wrong' really does justice to the situation.
Okay it was wrong and illegal.

How is the world going to police "oppresive regimes", and who is going to interpret who is in violation? Goes back to not enough money or manpower. Whether I think it is acceptable or not is a moot point.

Yes, because Bush never tries to keep people in a state of perpetual fear. And of course he found WMD's (you don't need to abreviate the of), he just decided to not tell anyone so he'd face the wrath of voters.

And to actually comment on intelligence, i don't know if sanctions would work. They didn't work in Iraq, nor have they worked in Cuba. (Although they did help fight apartheid). The whole concept of sanctions is to a certain extent rather twisted. They inheritantly harm those who can least defend themselves (the poor). It rarely harm those who control the country and doesn't neccessarily lead to revolution.

YOu're mostly right, but sanctions have actually shown an ok level of success. From 92 to 97, roughly 50% of UN sanctions had some level of success. This doesn't seem that great, but when you actually consider that it doesn't cost the nations very much, it looks a little better. But I think virtually everyone can acknowledge that sanctions are not an effective foreign policy.

I find that really interesting. I wonder what the UN considers "level's of success." To flip that stat though, that means that roughly 50% were completely unsuccessful and a sizeable amount had negligable levels of success.

Okay it was wrong and illegal.

How is the world going to police "oppresive regimes", and who is going to interpret who is in violation?
Well I think we can develope a certain standard that would be acceptable to virtually all governments who are ruling in the best interests of their populations. Things like repeated violations of very basic human rights (i.e. mass murders, imprisonment without trial, etc) should be comdemnable by pretty much everyone. I think Rawls' version of this standard in 'the Law of Peoples' would be pretty good.

Goes back to not enough money or manpower. Whether I think it is acceptable or not is a moot point.

I don't think it's moot at all, because we CAN help some nations, and we CAN help rectify some of these wrongs. Of course there's no instant solution, but I think it's morally correct to move against and overthrow oppressive regimes. Just because we can't help everyone all at once doesn't mean we shouldn't help anyone ever.

So my question would be- what should we do with tyrannical, oppressive regimes?
Bush should be flogged, shot, hung and quarterd.

you should have that done to u. u only hate bush because you don't understand why he started the war. i don't think anyone did. they keep almost 70 % of military intelligence secret so for all we know they could have found millions of WOMD but they wouldnt tell ppl because it would scare the hell out of everyone. so bush is really keeping us feeling safe even if he loses his presidency in the next vote.
Go to your room and do your homework. And no desert for you tonight. Found gazillions of "WOMD"s... :lol: The reason they gave us for invading and now that they found them they keep it a secret... :lol:

Okay it was wrong and illegal.

How is the world going to police "oppresive regimes", and who is going to interpret who is in violation?
Well I think we can develope a certain standard that would be acceptable to virtually all governments who are ruling in the best interests of their populations. Things like repeated violations of very basic human rights (i.e. mass murders, imprisonment without trial, etc) should be comdemnable by pretty much everyone. I think Rawls' version of this standard in 'the Law of Peoples' would be pretty good.

Goes back to not enough money or manpower. Whether I think it is acceptable or not is a moot point.

I don't think it's moot at all, because we CAN help some nations, and we CAN help rectify some of these wrongs. Of course there's no instant solution, but I think it's morally correct to move against and overthrow oppressive regimes. Just because we can't help everyone all at once doesn't mean we shouldn't help anyone ever.

Okay it was wrong and illegal.

How is the world going to police "oppresive regimes", and who is going to interpret who is in violation?
Well I think we can develope a certain standard that would be acceptable to virtually all governments who are ruling in the best interests of their populations. Things like repeated violations of very basic human rights (i.e. mass murders, imprisonment without trial, etc) should be comdemnable by pretty much everyone. I think Rawls' version of this standard in 'the Law of Peoples' would be pretty good.

Goes back to not enough money or manpower. Whether I think it is acceptable or not is a moot point.

I don't think it's moot at all, because we CAN help some nations, and we CAN help rectify some of these wrongs. Of course there's no instant solution, but I think it's morally correct to move against and overthrow oppressive regimes. Just because we can't help everyone all at once doesn't mean we shouldn't help anyone ever.

Bush should be flogged, shot, hung and quarterd.

yep, you got the right of it.

you should have that done to u. u only hate bush because you don't understand why he started the war. i don't think anyone did. they keep almost 70 % of military intelligence secret so for all we know they could have found millions of WOMD but they wouldnt tell ppl because it would scare the hell out of everyone. so bush is really keeping us feeling safe even if he loses his presidency in the next vote.

No, it would not scare us all, bush would be trumpeting it all around.

I don't think it's moot at all, because we CAN help some nations, and we CAN help rectify some of these wrongs. Of course there's no instant solution, but I think it's morally correct to move against and overthrow oppressive regimes. Just because we can't help everyone all at once doesn't mean we shouldn't help anyone ever.


The political will, however, simply isn't there. Especially considering how willing big business is willing to work hand in hand supporting them. (IE pepsi in Burma, IBM and hitler, coke in Columbia, etc...)

[quote="Madrigals"]

The political will, however, simply isn't there. Especially considering how willing big business is willing to work hand in hand supporting them. (IE pepsi in Burma, IBM and hitler, coke in Columbia, etc...)[/quote

I don't know about that... there's a growing sentiment in the buisness community that investing in unstable regions is really, really bad news. First, because corruption drastically increases the cost of operation, and second because your assets could be 'nationalized' at any time.

I do agree that there is a certain sense of apathy; however, I don't think this really has much to do with the moral aspect of my argument. Moreover, I think apathy can be surmounted in many cases, by publicizing the actual atrocities of the regime in question.

Normally One would say If you dont Like It leave and if they arent committing any big sort of Illegal actions then just let things tak thier course.

But because All the western politicians are oppressing Asylum seekers these days even tats not an option anymore. They need to stem the flow because it becomes too much of a political liability otherwise.

The political will, however, simply isn't there. Especially considering how willing big business is willing to work hand in hand supporting them. (IE pepsi in Burma, IBM and hitler, coke in Columbia, etc...)[/quote

I don't know about that... there's a growing sentiment in the buisness community that investing in unstable regions is really, really bad news. First, because corruption drastically increases the cost of operation, and second because your assets could be 'nationalized' at any time.

I do agree that there is a certain sense of apathy; however, I don't think this really has much to do with the moral aspect of my argument. Moreover, I think apathy can be surmounted in many cases, by publicizing the actual atrocities of the regime in question.

If this growing sentiment in business actually does exist (which i'd question think of wal-mart run sweatshops, or oil contracts, or some of the pipelines that have been built through afgahnistan while the taliban controlled it, etc.), it's motivated exclusively by greed. Some consumers object to it so minor token gestures are made. Gestures such as Wal-mart, gilden, and other sweatshop based corporations founding the Fair Labour Organization to monitor themselves. (I assume i don't need to explain the inherent conflict of interest when someone hires their own company to monitor human rights abuses)

You are talking about an impossible ideal. Too many intolerants, not enough money or manpower.

Iraq was wrong.

So thus you consider it morally acceptable to allow oppresive regimes to reign unopposed? I don't think simply saying 'Iraq was wrong' really does justice to the situation.
Okay it was wrong and illegal.

How is the world going to police "oppresive regimes", and who is going to interpret who is in violation? Goes back to not enough money or manpower. Whether I think it is acceptable or not is a moot point.

So if you, in all your obvious wisdom, think that an action is an impratical application of resources, it therefore becomes both wrong and illegal?

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of, I don't think it is at all unreasonable for the United States of America to think that it can, over the coming centuries, topple every evil regime on Earth (they could probably topple them all tomorrow, it's the reconstruction that takes a longer commitment). Even though reconstruction can take time (as in the case of the decade it took to reconstruct Japan), and elements of the local population can be hostile (as in the case of the Nazi holdouts who carried out horrific terrorist attacks on the Allies during the early reconstruction of Germany) it is in no way impossible; to think that it is one would have to overlook quite a lot of human history, but such inconvenient things as history rarely get in the way of those already biased against America.

Okay it was wrong and illegal.

How is the world going to police "oppresive regimes", and who is going to interpret who is in violation?

Well I think we can develope a certain standard that would be acceptable to virtually all governments who are ruling in the best interests of their populations. Things like repeated violations of very basic human rights (i.e. mass murders, imprisonment without trial, etc) should be comdemnable by pretty much everyone. I think Rawls' version of this standard in 'the Law of Peoples' would be pretty good.
The UN has been dealing with these issues for a long time and most often imposes sanctions, and for the serious offenders, troops have been sent in. Of course there are exceptions, such as Russia and China, no one is going there.

Goes back to not enough money or manpower. Whether I think it is acceptable or not is a moot point.

I don't think it's moot at all, because we CAN help some nations, and we CAN help rectify some of these wrongs. Of course there's no instant solution, but I think it's morally correct to move against and overthrow oppressive regimes. Just because we can't help everyone all at once doesn't mean we shouldn't help anyone ever.
Who is "we"?

Who is going to send troops into the US, if their actions are deemed in violation of very basic human rights?

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of

I don't think you have to be american to understand what western military force is capable of. I think as a westerner you would have a huge problem actually understanding what sort of devastation a "real western military force is capable of." You'd probably be better off asking the Chechen, serbs, croats (anyone else in the former Yugoslavia), iraqi's palestinians, panamese etc... They'd probably have an excellent understanding of what our armies can do

The UN has been dealing with these issues for a long time and most often imposes sanctions, and for the serious offenders, troops have been sent in. Of course there are exceptions, such as Russia and China, no one is going there.

The UN is largely unable to deal with systematic abuses of human rights because the UN recognizes the legitimacy of unacceptable regimes. By recognizing the Saudi princes, dictators like Hussien or Qaddafi, and military regimes like that of Musharaff, the UN legitimizes government which do not rule in the best interests of their people. Until the UN is willing to take a strong stance against these regimes, it may be necessary to work outside the constraints of the UN system.


Who is "we"?

I was referring to the western powers, but morally speaking as soon as a regime becomes tyrannical, it is no longer legitimate, and any legitimate regime would be justified in invading. So we is any legitimate nation with the necessary will.

Who is going to send troops into the US, if their actions are deemed in violation of very basic human rights?

Well at this point I think the US does fall within the limits of a tolerable regime. If it became illegitimate, any other nation would be justified in invading, though I doubt they would be able to.

The political will, however, simply isn't there. Especially considering how willing big business is willing to work hand in hand supporting them. (IE pepsi in Burma, IBM and hitler, coke in Columbia, etc...)

I don't know about that... there's a growing sentiment in the buisness community that investing in unstable regions is really, really bad news. First, because corruption drastically increases the cost of operation, and second because your assets could be 'nationalized' at any time.


Am I the only one that finds it disturbing that the business community appears to be primarily concerned about its own assets, rather than the morality of their actions?

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of

I don't think you have to be american to understand what western military force is capable of. I think as a westerner you would have a huge problem actually understanding what sort of devastation a "real western military force is capable of." You'd probably be better off asking the Chechen, serbs, croats (anyone else in the former Yugoslavia), iraqi's palestinians, panamese etc... They'd probably have an excellent understanding of what our armies can do

Or you could ask a Rwandan what a non-western paramilitary force is capable of...

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of

I don't think you have to be american to understand what western military force is capable of. I think as a westerner you would have a huge problem actually understanding what sort of devastation a "real western military force is capable of." You'd probably be better off asking the Chechen, serbs, croats (anyone else in the former Yugoslavia), iraqi's palestinians, panamese etc... They'd probably have an excellent understanding of what our armies can do

True, but I don't think Canadians have ever been at the giving or recieving end of a modern military attack, so I'll stand by my statement.

The UN is largely unable to deal with systematic abuses of human rights because the UN recognizes the legitimacy of unacceptable regimes. By recognizing the Saudi princes, dictators like Hussien or Qaddafi, and military regimes like that of Musharaff, the UN legitimizes government which do not rule in the best interests of their people. Until the UN is willing to take a strong stance against these regimes, it may be necessary to work outside the constraints of the UN system.
It doesn't help when western states legitimizes these very same dictatorial regimes. The US supports Saudia ARabia, has armed Pakistan and Algeria. Russia and France actively trade with Iran. Everyone does excellent business with China. To me, this is a bigger problem than the UN recognizing these states.


I was referring to the western powers, but morally speaking as soon as a regime becomes tyrannical, it is no longer legitimate, and any legitimate regime would be justified in invading. So we is any legitimate nation with the necessary will.

Does invading make a difference? Quite often, history has shown us that the replacements have not done better jobs. The former Yugoslavia is an excellent example of this. It requires a sustained effort and the political will for ths simply does not exist.


Well at this point I think the US does fall within the limits of a tolerable regime. If it became illegitimate, any other nation would be justified in invading, though I doubt they would be able to.

Agreed that the US is a tolerable regime, but its business's do perpetuate Human rights abuses around the world (sweatshops, supporting military dictators, destroy the environment, etc...). Should this not also be more of a global issue.

Bodies without Organs, youo should check out the corporation (www.thecorporation.tv). It's a documentary about how corporations, as recognized person's under law, display the characteristics of a psycho path. Even Milton Friedman speaks in it.

True, but I don't think Canadians have ever been at the giving or recieving end of a modern military attack, so I'll stand by my statement.

I believe 1945 might have been the last time, but I could be wrong.

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of

I don't think you have to be american to understand what western military force is capable of. I think as a westerner you would have a huge problem actually understanding what sort of devastation a "real western military force is capable of." You'd probably be better off asking the Chechen, serbs, croats (anyone else in the former Yugoslavia), iraqi's palestinians, panamese etc... They'd probably have an excellent understanding of what our armies can do

True, but I don't think Canadians have ever been at the giving or recieving end of a modern military attack, so I'll stand by my statement.

The giving side has much less of an understanding. I stand by my statement that you do not have an understanding.

True, but I don't think Canadians have ever been at the giving or recieving end of a modern military attack, so I'll stand by my statement.

I believe 1945 might have been the last time, but I could be wrong.

1955 (not sure of exact date), canada was involved in the Korean War
1990 gulf war
2000 afgahnistan.

Or you could ask a Rwandan what a non-western paramilitary force is capable of...

I am so glad you brought that up; it's a case study of U.N. ineffectivness (the U.S. was as fault too) and the tendency of the western powers to totally ignore the continent of Africa.

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of

I don't think you have to be american to understand what western military force is capable of. I think as a westerner you would have a huge problem actually understanding what sort of devastation a "real western military force is capable of." You'd probably be better off asking the Chechen, serbs, croats (anyone else in the former Yugoslavia), iraqi's palestinians, panamese etc... They'd probably have an excellent understanding of what our armies can do

True, but I don't think Canadians have ever been at the giving or recieving end of a modern military attack, so I'll stand by my statement.Considering that before this most recent foray into Iraq, the Canadian Armed Forces have been a part of virtually every coalition engagement dating back to WW I, I would say you're mistaken on that. They haven't been attacked on their own soil, perhaps, but then again, with only a very few exceptions, neither has the US.

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of

I don't think you have to be american to understand what western military force is capable of. I think as a westerner you would have a huge problem actually understanding what sort of devastation a "real western military force is capable of." You'd probably be better off asking the Chechen, serbs, croats (anyone else in the former Yugoslavia), iraqi's palestinians, panamese etc... They'd probably have an excellent understanding of what our armies can do

Or you could ask a Rwandan what a non-western paramilitary force is capable of...

I hate these statements. Someone makes an anti clinton statement, it's countered by a bush statement, vice versa applies also. I don't think the fact that a non western paramilitary group perpetuated genocide justifies widescale human rights abuses by western countries.

What Should Be Done with Oppressive Regimes?

Stop giving them aid from the US treasury. I believe it is this month that the US decides whether to continue supporting the government of Uzbekistan. In 2002 they gave them $500 million, despiteUS State Department themselves describing the poltical situation there thusly:

"Uzbekistan is not a democracy and does not have a free press. Many opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested. The government severely represses those it suspects of Islamic extremism. Some 6,000 suspected extremists are incarcerated, and some are believed to have died over the past several years from prison disease and abuse. With few options for religious instruction, some young Muslims have turn to underground extremist Islamic movements. The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine investigation technique."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2924.htm

It doesn't help when western states legitimizes these very same dictatorial regimes. The US supports Saudia ARabia, has armed Pakistan and Algeria. Russia and France actively trade with Iran. Everyone does excellent business with China. To me, this is a bigger problem than the UN recognizing these states.


Yes, I agree, it's very problematic. China is somewhat different, since it does seem to be genuinely liberalizing, and there is a tremendous curtailing of human rights abuses. Support of tyrannical regimes should stop immediately, and should include US/Western allies, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Does invading make a difference? Quite often, history has shown us that the replacements have not done better jobs. The former Yugoslavia is an excellent example of this. It requires a sustained effort and the political will for ths simply does not exist.

Invading can and has made differences when the will and support is there. The political will can be there if the invasion is properly planned; as such, Iraq is not a good candidate. Afghanistan is better, but not great. Japan and Germany are good examples.


Agreed that the US is a tolerable regime, but its business's do perpetuate Human rights abuses around the world (sweatshops, supporting military dictators, destroy the environment, etc...). Should this not also be more of a global issue.


Yes, and I think that's very problematic. However, it's a difficult problem to solve, because it demands a multilateral solution and at present most international organizations recognize and legitimate the very regimes we are trying to oppose.

Iraq is now quite obviously turning into one of the bigger debacles of the past few decades. IF things continue to escalate, we can only imagine the reprecussions. It seems like the US policy of interventionism may be on its last legs; Iraq is just not looking good.

So my question would be- what should we do with tyrannical, oppressive regimes?

Personally, I think that there is a clear difference between tolerable regimes and those that cannot be legitimized at an international level. These kinds of nations must not be tolerated or dealt with. While diplomacy and economic actions are (perhaps) good first choices, I do believe that invasion and toppling of these tyrranical parties is acceptable, and perhaps even a morally necessary action. I don't see how we can simply allow things like genocide, mass murder, repression of women, or any other serious oppression to go on. I do think there is a time and place of action. I think that Iraq, even without the threat of WMDs or terrorism, was one of those places. However, obviously the war went totally ass backwards and Bush kind of f--- it up. Still, these invasions should not be totally dismissed. What do you think?

This is why we have the UN.

It doesn't help when western states legitimizes these very same dictatorial regimes. The US supports Saudia ARabia, has armed Pakistan and Algeria. Russia and France actively trade with Iran. Everyone does excellent business with China. To me, this is a bigger problem than the UN recognizing these states.


Yes, I agree, it's very problematic. China is somewhat different, since it does seem to be genuinely liberalizing, and there is a tremendous curtailing of human rights abuses. Support of tyrannical regimes should stop immediately, and should include US/Western allies, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Does invading make a difference? Quite often, history has shown us that the replacements have not done better jobs. The former Yugoslavia is an excellent example of this. It requires a sustained effort and the political will for ths simply does not exist.

Invading can and has made differences when the will and support is there. The political will can be there if the invasion is properly planned; as such, Iraq is not a good candidate. Afghanistan is better, but not great. Japan and Germany are good examples.


Agreed that the US is a tolerable regime, but its business's do perpetuate Human rights abuses around the world (sweatshops, supporting military dictators, destroy the environment, etc...). Should this not also be more of a global issue.


Yes, and I think that's very problematic. However, it's a difficult problem to solve, because it demands a multilateral solution and at present most international organizations recognize and legitimate the very regimes we are trying to oppose.

dammit, i wanted to continue arguing with you, but i pretty much agree with this. After i pressed submit i realized i shoudl probably mention somethign about how the will existed in Japan and China, but that too often it doesn't.

What Should Be Done with Oppressive Regimes?

Stop giving them aid from the US treasury. I believe it is this month that the US decides whether to continue supporting the government of Uzbekistan. In 2002 they gave them $500 million, despiteUS State Department themselves describing the poltical situation there thusly:

"Uzbekistan is not a democracy and does not have a free press. Many opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested. The government severely represses those it suspects of Islamic extremism. Some 6,000 suspected extremists are incarcerated, and some are believed to have died over the past several years from prison disease and abuse. With few options for religious instruction, some young Muslims have turn to underground extremist Islamic movements. The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine investigation technique."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2924.htmBut they do share a border with Afghanistan and serve as a staging area for our military, so we can just ignore all those pesky human rights and free speech issues, right? (That's the administration's view, not mine.)

This is just my opinion.

Maybe we should look at what has, and what has'nt worked in the past, and then come up with some new ideas.

In the Iraq case a quarintine with sanctions and blockades did'nt stop Saddam from killing his people.

Toppling him from power with a miltary invasion just released all those ethnic and religious tensions that had been building up under the oppressive policies of his iron fisted regeim,while throwing western cultural differences into the mix.

Redfining national borders ,and setting up new nations under religious,or ethnic lines would give some of the new nations immense wealth and power, while leaving other nations in utter poverty. As well as interfering with other nations who have some what stabilized there existing borders.

I beleive that most people who post on this site are highly intelligent, and well read.I have also noted that most of you really keep up on current events.

I pray a solution can be found.

I thank the author of this thread,he asks a daring question.

A question that needs a daring answer.

The UN is largely unable to deal with systematic abuses of human rights because the UN recognizes the legitimacy of unacceptable regimes. By recognizing the Saudi princes, dictators like Hussien or Qaddafi, and military regimes like that of Musharaff, the UN legitimizes government which do not rule in the best interests of their people. Until the UN is willing to take a strong stance against these regimes, it may be necessary to work outside the constraints of the UN system.
It doesn't help when western states legitimizes these very same dictatorial regimes. The US supports Saudia ARabia, has armed Pakistan and Algeria. Russia and France actively trade with Iran. Everyone does excellent business with China. To me, this is a bigger problem than the UN recognizing these states.



I was referring to the western powers, but morally speaking as soon as a regime becomes tyrannical, it is no longer legitimate, and any legitimate regime would be justified in invading. So we is any legitimate nation with the necessary will.

Does invading make a difference? Quite often, history has shown us that the replacements have not done better jobs. The former Yugoslavia is an excellent example of this. It requires a sustained effort and the political will for ths simply does not exist.


Well at this point I think the US does fall within the limits of a tolerable regime. If it became illegitimate, any other nation would be justified in invading, though I doubt they would be able to.

Agreed that the US is a tolerable regime, but its business's do perpetuate Human rights abuses around the world (sweatshops, supporting military dictators, destroy the environment, etc...). Should this not also be more of a global issue.

Bodies without Organs, youo should check out the corporation (www.thecorporation.tv). It's a documentary about how corporations, as recognized person's under law, display the characteristics of a psycho path. Even Milton Friedman speaks in it.

Well, to my opinion i don't think its the matter of whether the US is meant to be a tolerated regime, but rather what should be done about it. As we have all learnt from past experience such as with Suddam, North Korea, Iraq, etc..etc... if we leave the tyrants and other such-likes alone through toleration(eg. George Bush), they tend to become paranoid or hyper-active in believing they can achieve anything, and soon this "tolerated regime" blows up and does something unspeakable. Believe me, the Japs did it in WW2, fancy taking on the US, and obviously, the US would commit a similar thing.

True, but I don't think Canadians have ever been at the giving or recieving end of a modern military attack, so I'll stand by my statement.

I believe 1945 might have been the last time, but I could be wrong.

1955 (not sure of exact date), canada was involved in the Korean War
1990 gulf war
2000 afgahnistan.

Canada has virtually no military, they do not have any extracontinental air capability nor could their navy pose a threat to even the sillyest of dictators. Unless it turns out that, unknown to the rest of us, the Canadian mainland was seriously invaded by Hitler (the last western power Canada fought against) I will stand by my statement.

Or you could ask a Rwandan what a non-western paramilitary force is capable of...

I hate these statements. Someone makes an anti clinton statement, it's countered by a bush statement, vice versa applies also. I don't think the fact that a non western paramilitary group perpetuated genocide justifies widescale human rights abuses by western countries.

I have been misinterpreted: I was asserting that the modernised western military powers are not the only ones who are able to carry out feats of might.

In no way was I attempting to justify genocide at all. If anything I was hinting that there exists in the world today a military paradox: on one side are the highly technologically dependent, highly trained, highly centralised military powers of the west, and they are seeking to defeat military forces who are able to achieve their aims with machetes or box-cutters. It seems like the late Vietnam war in overdrive.

(That was not particularly well put, but you probably get my drift this time)

This is why we have the UN.

Except the UN recognizes tyrannical, intolerable regimes. When the UN is comprised partly of dictators and despots, it does a serious disservice to the morals and ideas behind such an organization. Regimes which do not respect human rights and do not govern in the best interests of their peoples are not legitimate governments, and should not be recognized as such.

This is just my opinion.

Maybe we should look at what has, and what has'nt worked in the past, and then come up with some new ideas.

In the Iraq case a quarintine with sanctions and blockades did'nt stop Saddam from killing his people.

Toppling him from power with a miltary invasion just released all those ethnic and religious tensions that had been building up under the oppressive policies of his iron fisted regeim,while throwing western cultural differences into the mix.

Redfining national borders ,and setting up new nations under religious,or ethnic lines would give some of the new nations immense wealth and power, while leaving other nations in utter poverty. As well as interfering with other nations who have some what stabilized there existing borders.

I beleive that most people who post on this site are highly intelligent, and well read.I have also noted that most of you really keep up on current events.

I pray a solution can be found.

I thank the author of this thread,he asks a daring question.

A question that needs a daring answer.

Hitler (the last western power Canada fought against)

If China or Russia are considered western countries (that ones kinda ambigious), it was in 1955.
If not, 1945 was the last time ANY western country fought eachother. Since then, they learnt better, and bombed shitty armies :? I fail to see how (along your logic that's based on historical innacuriaces) in order to understand the western prepensity for v iolence, you must have fought one.

Bodies without Organs, youo should check out the corporation (www.thecorporation.tv). It's a documentary about how corporations, as recognized person's under law, display the characteristics of a psycho path. Even Milton Friedman speaks in it.

Thanks, I will have a look at that - I haven't heard of that documentary before, but the idea you are describing as lying behind it is not new to me.

Hitler (the last western power Canada fought against)

If China or Russia are considered western countries (that ones kinda ambigious), it was in 1955.

Cough. UK vs. Argentina. 1982. Irrelevant but true. If nothing else the Argentinians were certainly employing western (French made) high tech weaponry.

The UN has been dealing with these issues for a long time and most often imposes sanctions, and for the serious offenders, troops have been sent in. Of course there are exceptions, such as Russia and China, no one is going there.

The UN is largely unable to deal with systematic abuses of human rights because the UN recognizes the legitimacy of unacceptable regimes. By recognizing the Saudi princes, dictators like Hussien or Qaddafi, and military regimes like that of Musharaff, the UN legitimizes government which do not rule in the best interests of their people. Until the UN is willing to take a strong stance against these regimes, it may be necessary to work outside the constraints of the UN system.
That is a very large work order. Again it goes back to money, and human resources, there is just not enough to go around.
Who is "we"?

I was referring to the western powers, but morally speaking as soon as a regime becomes tyrannical, it is no longer legitimate, and any legitimate regime would be justified in invading. So we is any legitimate nation with the necessary will.
Who is going to separate the wheat from the chaff? The western powers would not be able to do this on their own, without getting the Communists upset. No win situation.

Who is going to send troops into the US, if their actions are deemed in violation of very basic human rights?

Well at this point I think the US does fall within the limits of a tolerable regime. If it became illegitimate, any other nation would be justified in invading, though I doubt they would be able to.
Houston we have a problem

Canada has virtually no military, they do not have any extracontinental air capability nor could their navy pose a threat to even the sillyest of dictators. Unless it turns out that, unknown to the rest of us, the Canadian mainland was seriously invaded by Hitler (the last western power Canada fought against) I will stand by my statement.Does it require an invasion? The US hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812 if I recall correctly. Britain hasn't been invaded since the days of William the Conqueror. Like I said in my other post, Canada has been a part of virtually every international coalition except for the current Iraq conflict in the last 50+ years.

Or you could ask a Rwandan what a non-western paramilitary force is capable of...

I hate these statements. Someone makes an anti clinton statement, it's countered by a bush statement, vice versa applies also. I don't think the fact that a non western paramilitary group perpetuated genocide justifies widescale human rights abuses by western countries.

I have been misinterpreted: I was asserting that the modernised western military powers are not the only ones who are able to carry out feats of might.

In no way was I attempting to justify genocide at all. If anything I was hinting that there exists in the world today a military paradox: on one side are the highly technologically dependent, highly trained, highly centralised military powers of the west, and they are seeking to defeat military forces who are able to achieve their aims with machetes or box-cutters. It seems like the late Vietnam war in overdrive.

(That was not particularly well put, but you probably get my drift this time)

sorry about that then. (the bush clinton thing really annoys me though :lol: ) My activist group just put the movie on for about 615 people, second time we did it. It's this years sundance award winner. It shoudl be relaesed soon for art house release (mainstream wouldn't play it)

Hitler (the last western power Canada fought against)

If China or Russia are considered western countries (that ones kinda ambigious), it was in 1955.

Cough. UK vs. Argentina. 1982. Irrelevant but true. If nothing else the Argentinians were certainly employing western (French made) high tech weaponry.

Forgot about that one. Oh margeret thatcher, you certainly ruined the argument that if women were in power, there would be no war. :lol:

But they do share a border with Afghanistan and serve as a staging area for our military, so we can just ignore all those pesky human rights and free speech issues, right? (That's the administration's view, not mine.)

As both you and I know, it was the administration thinking like that that helped give birth to the problems that have been facing Iraq for the past 25-odd years.

for all we know they could have found millions of WOMD but they wouldnt tell ppl because it would scare the hell out of everyone. so bush is really keeping us feeling safe even if he loses his presidency in the next vote.

Bush has said as have other experts that there are no WMDS. It is documented fact. And it's not just the US in there. Other nations have intelligence about Iraq, including the UN weapons inspectors. It's not like the US is the only source of information in the world.

for all we know they could have found millions of WOMD but they wouldnt tell ppl because it would scare the hell out of everyone. so bush is really keeping us feeling safe even if he loses his presidency in the next vote.

Bush has said as have other experts that there are no WMDS. It is documented fact. And it's not just the US in there. Other nations have intelligence about Iraq, including the UN weapons inspectors. It's not like the US is the only source of information in the world.

dude, that was like so page 1 :lol:

I have to young children. What is the most likely way they will die? They are more likely to die at the hands of a terrorist than from a heart attack. Ludicrous? Not really, one nuclear weopon is all it takes. They only have to get through our defenses once. While I believe most Muslims would never support an attack like that, it only takes a few. Only 3% of Germans were Nazis. How many millions died? In 1917 less than 1% of Russians were Communists. How many millions died? We've known for years that the most hard core members of Islam want Christians and Jews dead and interpret the Koran to give them no choice. What to do about it? I don't know. We can wait for the UN to do something. We can wait for them to actually nuke New York and take the perpetrators to court. We can invade them and inflame them more. I don't know, I hope we elect leaders smarter than myself, but I seriously believe that we can only slow terrorists down. It's only a matter of time until a large swath of land in the United States is radioactive. 5 days? 1 year? 50 years? I don't know, but it will happen. Heck, even high school kids know the fundamentals of making a nuclear weopon, we can't stop it.

In most nations the thugs rule and nations that have Western style Democracy are only blips on the radar of history. Eventually one side or the other of a two party system will get frustrated enough to restort to violence and it will be over. Imagine Africa or southern Asia with every country having a nuclear weopon, the know how is there, it will happen eventually and sooner or later a dictator will be crazy enough to use it.

The United States will never win. I said on the day of 9/11 that this nation didn't have the resolve to fight a war and win anymore. I told my students who were all screaming to go to war, that over half the people would be off board in less than 6 months. If Hitler came on the scene today we'd never stop him. I'm surprised we've lasted as long as we have. We'll be out of Iraq in less than 5 years and they'll turn back into a dictatorship almost immediately and we won't have accomplished anything. This isn't Democrats fault, this isn't Republicans fault. Human nature is human nature and we all love our comfortable life too much to risk it. Amazingly the love of the easy life is what will cause us to lose it.

That is a very large work order. Again it goes back to money, and human resources, there is just not enough to go around.

So because we cannot do everything, we should do nothing? This rings hollow to me. It may be a very large work order, but it is certainly the most important order which faces us as a species today.

Who is going to separate the wheat from the chaff? The western powers would not be able to do this on their own, without getting the Communists upset. No win situation.

As I said, I think internationally we can come up with a code of legitimacy which can be accepted by communists (though there's no really communist threat left) and any other form of government- basic respect for human rights, governing in genuine common good, perhaps a few other things. It should be acceptable to all reasonable governments.


Houston we have a problem

I don't see how, especially at this point, when the US would clearly be a legitimate, tolerable regime. Again, you seem to be saying 'because we can't do everything, we should do nothing' which I do not accept.

But they do share a border with Afghanistan and serve as a staging area for our military, so we can just ignore all those pesky human rights and free speech issues, right? (That's the administration's view, not mine.)

As both you and I know, it was the administration thinking like that that helped give birth to the problems that have been facing Iraq for the past 25-odd years.

I think you can extend that to the middle east and Africa at large. ME states tend to have straight line borders because they were carved by outside colonial powers who cared little about the makeups of the people inside (ie why there are kurds seeking independence from 3 different countries)

for all we know they could have found millions of WMD but they wouldnt tell ppl because it would scare the hell out of everyone. so bush is really keeping us feeling safe even if he loses his presidency in the next vote.

Bush has said as have other experts that there are no WMDS. It is documented fact. And it's not just the US in there. Other nations have intelligence about Iraq, including the UN weapons inspectors. It's not like the US is the only source of information in the world.

dude, that was like so page 1 :lol:

no one else had effectively refuted it

so the question is asked was Iraq wrong? Well if that is the real question, one must ask themselve was it wrong to go over to Bosina? Was it wrong to fight Hitler? Was it wrong to be in World War II? What is a "righteous" war and what is a "evil" war? who decides?


I think the problem is that Bush is the first modern president to not just talk about fix Iraq, but is willing to do some real work about it.

Hitler (the last western power Canada fought against)

If China or Russia are considered western countries (that ones kinda ambigious), it was in 1955.
If not, 1945 was the last time ANY western country fought eachother. Since then, they learnt better, and bombed shitty armies :? I fail to see how (along your logic that's based on historical innacuriaces) in order to understand the western prepensity for v iolence, you must have fought one.

I was not considering Canada's brief infantry engadgements with an eastern power to fit the bill, but please, point out my historical innacuracies, I'm always willing to learn. I also don't think that we're discussing a Canadians ability to understand some sort of western propensity for violence, we're discussing a Canadians ability to estimate the capability of a fully functional western military force.

We've known for years that the most hard core members of Islam want Christians and Jews dead and interpret the Koran to give them no choice.

I think it is also safe to say that the most hardcore members of the Christian faith want Jews adn muslims dead and interpret the Bible to give them no choice.

As I said, I think internationally we can come up with a code of legitimacy which can be accepted by communists (though there's no really communist threat left) and any other form of government- basic respect for human rights, governing in genuine common good, perhaps a few other things. It should be acceptable to all reasonable governments.


Think of what the US proposed for the FTAA negotiations. They asked that a corruption clause be placed in the FTAA where a state would be discluded from hemispheric trade if it was viewed as corrupt. Problem was, in practice this would ban Venezuela from trade (cuba as well, but Cuba actually is quite corrupt).

I also don't think that we're discussing a Canadians ability to understand some sort of western propensity for violence, we're discussing a Canadians ability to estimate the capability of a fully functional western military force.

If I can butt in here for a second: a well informed Canadian or New Zealander or Belgian is going to be able to estimate the capability of a fully functional western military force better than an ill-informed American. Interesting though this discussion of Canadian military history is (and in no way do I wish to disparage the Canadian armed forces, as I had relations that fought and died in their service during WWI), it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.


Nationality is not an issue when it comes to understanding or estimating military issues.

Hitler (the last western power Canada fought against)

If China or Russia are considered western countries (that ones kinda ambigious), it was in 1955.
If not, 1945 was the last time ANY western country fought eachother. Since then, they learnt better, and bombed shitty armies :? I fail to see how (along your logic that's based on historical innacuriaces) in order to understand the western prepensity for v iolence, you must have fought one.

I was not considering Canada's brief infantry engadgements with an eastern power to fit the bill, but please, point out my historical innacuracies, I'm always willing to learn. I also don't think that we're discussing a Canadians ability to understand some sort of western propensity for violence, we're discussing a Canadians ability to estimate the capability of a fully functional western military force.

China and Russia's army's were quite developped at that point. At one point they were winning the war until General Mccarthur threatened to nuke em. I do think, however, that Canada is as incapable as the US to understand what sort of human suffering bombings cause.

for all we know they could have found millions of WMD but they wouldnt tell ppl because it would scare the hell out of everyone. so bush is really keeping us feeling safe even if he loses his presidency in the next vote.

Bush has said as have other experts that there are no WMDS. It is documented fact. And it's not just the US in there. Other nations have intelligence about Iraq, including the UN weapons inspectors. It's not like the US is the only source of information in the world.

dude, that was like so page 1 :lol:

no one else had effectively refuted it

I did ;)

so the question is asked was Iraq wrong? Well if that is the real question, one must ask themselve was it wrong to go over to Bosina? Was it wrong to fight Hitler? Was it wrong to be in World War II? What is a "righteous" war and what is a "evil" war? who decides?


I think the problem is that Bush is the first modern president to not just talk about fix Iraq, but is willing to do some real work about it.
Yeah while he sits behind a desk? Other people do the dying part of what is inked on his official decrees. Looks like the work is getting harder to do as well?

I think the problem is that Bush is the first modern president to not just talk about fix Iraq, but is willing to do some real work about it.

Did you sleep through George Bush Senior's* term, or does he not count as a "modern" president?

*This post should in no way be seen as an endorsement of Bush sr's activities.

I think the problem is that Bush is the first modern president to not just talk about fix Iraq, but is willing to do some real work about it.

Did you sleep through George Bush Senior's* term, or does he not count as a "modern" president?

*This post should in no way be seen as an endorsement of Bush sr's activities.
dude, he's like so 1990

so the question is asked was Iraq wrong? Well if that is the real question, one must ask themselve was it wrong to go over to Bosina? Was it wrong to fight Hitler? Was it wrong to be in World War II? What is a "righteous" war and what is a "evil" war? who decides?


I think the problem is that Bush is the first modern president to not just talk about fix Iraq, but is willing to do some real work about it.

While I think Iraq was morally justifiable, it was not well planned out, nor well explained and justified to both the world and the American people. It was a seroius faux pas that could have dramatic impacts on the ablitiy of nations to effect the kinds of changes I'm advocating.

The problem is that not one workable solution has been proposed. The current ways to destabalize governments is through supporting subvertives, sanctions or in extreme cases, wage war. Quite often, these do not make citizens better off and even more often, hurt the people least able to provide for themselves.

Forgive me if I have missed the point here, but the reason that US/Coalition forces were allowed to go back into Iraq this time round had nothing to do with whether it was an oppressive regime or not, but instead because of non-compliance with UN resolutions regarding inspection of sites and facilites capable of producing WMDs, no?

Forgive me if I have missed the point here, but the reason that US/Coalition forces were allowed to go back into Iraq this time round had nothing to do with whether it was an oppressive regime or not, but instead because of non-compliance with UN resolutions regarding inspection of sites and facilites capable of producing WMDs, no?

That's true, but it doesn't mean the war wasn't justifiable morally speaking. Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

While I think Iraq was morally justifiable, it was not well planned out, nor well explained and justified to both the world and the American people. .

I have thought about this and I think Mr. Bush et al really believed that they would be met with open arms by the Iraqi people. Which to be fair some people have been quite pleased by our operations. I don't thinkl he thought he needed a plan or a justification beyond "come on guys. Hello! Iraq!!"

My favorite tidbit of propaganda has been that thanks to America we have brought the first garbage trucks to Baghdad ever. The implication is that barbarous Baghdad citizens somehow let their garbage pile up when 5 seconds of thought will let you know that one of the oldest cities on earth has some kind of system for garbage removal even if it isnt a truck. I think Bush expects to be patted on the back for garbage trucks and schools and who knows what else

Forgive me if I have missed the point here, but the reason that US/Coalition forces were allowed to go back into Iraq this time round had nothing to do with whether it was an oppressive regime or not, but instead because of non-compliance with UN resolutions regarding inspection of sites and facilites capable of producing WMDs, no?

That's true, but it doesn't mean the war wasn't justifiable morally speaking. Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

It just seemed like an interesting general discussion about the rights and wrongs of intervention in foreign countries with oppressive regimes was going to get sidelined in the minutiae of the war in Iraq, with which we are all too familiar, and which wasn't actually a war about an oppressive regime.

China and Russia's army's were quite developped at that point. At one point they were winning the war until General Mccarthur threatened to nuke em. I do think, however, that Canada is as incapable as the US to understand what sort of human suffering bombings cause.

An interesting theory, though not substantiated in fact. The American army had halted the Chinese advance and both armies were at brief stalemate when Russia brokered a peace deal. At least that's what most people agree happened. Really though, I'm not, and never was arguing, as you seem to be, that any nation is incapable of understanding suffering and loss. I was making a point, quite relevant to the current debate, that nations that do not posses the capability to defeat and then reconstruct another nation often think that because their nation couldn't dream of doing it then the task is impossible. This is not the case. The Canadian government, and almost all of the Canadians I've encountered, can't believe that the U.S. will succede on its present course in the Middle East, but that's because they don't understand how powerful the U.S. really is.

First clean our own house. Consume less. Help other nations with their huge problems.

What with multi-national corporations and the military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned of back in the 1950's controlling the media and political funding--$160,000,000 for a presidential campaign chest????--we suffer a suppression of information and a failure of the fourth estate to perform its function. Add to that sound bites and screaming pundits and I wonder if the press/media has been coopted to such an extent that the Extreme Right will dominate our politics, environmental and energy policy, and foreign policy (relations???) for far too long. Where is the countervailing power of the Fourth Estate?

The polity is evenly divided, but the money and the redistricting schemes are not. Everything favors the incumbent party. Pretty soon you have, in effect, a one party system. Bad! :evil:

Don't get distracted :!: Nothing distracts like a good war....hmmmm. And think of the profits! :mrgreen:

There are 2 really important issues that are not being talked about: terrorism and Iraq are not among them. Nor is the economy, painful as that is to a lot of people. The issues are 1.) nuclear proliferation and 2.) global warming, species extinction, and environmental degradation. Both of these have the very real potential of either exterminating or degrading the human species on a scale never dreamed of. Imagine 100 million refugees in the USA alone.

:idea: So get involved. Ask questions. Don't assume you are being told the truth. Be an informed citizen citizen of the world, whatever your point of view. Go work in the campaign. And vote.

Get networked. Join your favorite causes. Pressure Congress and the White House. Become an email Lobbyist. It only takes a few minutes a day.

This is why we have the UN.

Except the UN recognizes tyrannical, intolerable regimes. When the UN is comprised partly of dictators and despots, it does a serious disservice to the morals and ideas behind such an organization. Regimes which do not respect human rights and do not govern in the best interests of their peoples are not legitimate governments, and should not be recognized as such.
Yeah, the UN should finally speak out against the US facist regime.

China and Russia's army's were quite developped at that point. At one point they were winning the war until General Mccarthur threatened to nuke em. I do think, however, that Canada is as incapable as the US to understand what sort of human suffering bombings cause.

An interesting theory, though not substantiated in fact. The American army had halted the Chinese advance and both armies were at brief stalemate when Russia brokered a peace deal. At least that's what most people agree happened. Really though, I'm not, and never was arguing, as you seem to be, that any nation is incapable of understanding suffering and loss. I was making a point, quite relevant to the current debate, that nations that do not posses the capability to defeat and then reconstruct another nation often think that because their nation couldn't dream of doing it then the task is impossible. This is not the case. The Canadian government, and almost all of the Canadians I've encountered, can't believe that the U.S. will succede on its present course in the Middle East, but that's because they don't understand how powerful the U.S. really is.

I'm not saying that any country is incapable of knowing what sort of suffering and loss that war causes. We in the west may have an intellectual understanding, haven't had tanks driven through our streets or missiles flying overhead. The only thing that comes remotely close to the full out war experienced in many 3rd world countries is terrorism in England and Israe. Even then, it isn't the same scope.

And the reason with which the US will fail is not because of a lack of military power. Stabalizing a country does not come out of repression and cannot be done through military might alone. Ironically, that's what dictators used.

Regimes which do not respect human rights and do not govern in the best interests of their peoples are not legitimate governments, and should not be recognized as such.


Honest question: What is the philosophical argument that underpins this assertion?

The only thing that comes remotely close to the full out war experienced in many 3rd world countries is terrorism in England and Israe.

I think instead of "England" there you may have wanted to type "Northern Ireland", my home country.

This is why we have the UN.

Except the UN recognizes tyrannical, intolerable regimes. When the UN is comprised partly of dictators and despots, it does a serious disservice to the morals and ideas behind such an organization. Regimes which do not respect human rights and do not govern in the best interests of their peoples are not legitimate governments, and should not be recognized as such.
Yeah, the UN should finally speak out against the US facist regime.

Facist...right. Ya know, ya really shouldn't use words that ya don't understand.

Oh well, I've always been in favor of the glass parking lot form of foriegn policy for the middle east: if any country gives you trouble...glass parking lot. :wink:

Regimes which do not respect human rights and do not govern in the best interests of their peoples are not legitimate governments, and should not be recognized as such.


Honest question: What is the philosophical argument that underpins this assertion?

Liberal Egalitarianism, as expressed most specifically in an international context by Rawls in A Law of Peoples...

Regimes which do not respect human rights and do not govern in the best interests of their peoples are not legitimate governments, and should not be recognized as such.


Honest question: What is the philosophical argument that underpins this assertion?

sadly, not international law
to be a state, it must
1. be recognized both bilaterally (other states) and multilaterally (the UN)
2. have clear and defined borders
3. have effective control of its people (note this can include a democracy or dicatatorial govt)
there's a couple others but i haven't studied my IL exam yet.

The only thing that comes remotely close to the full out war experienced in many 3rd world countries is terrorism in England and Israe.

I think instead of "England" there you may have wanted to type "Northern Ireland", my home country.

Weren't their bombings in England as well as NI. I only started caring about the world 2 years ago, so current events i'm pretty up to par but in all truthfullness, my history is still catching up

sadly, not international law
to be a state, it must
1. be recognized both bilaterally (other states) and multilaterally (the UN)
2. have clear and defined borders
3. have effective control of its people (note this can include a democracy or dicatatorial govt)
there's a couple others but i haven't studied my IL exam yet.

I think nearly everyone should be able to agree that as it stands, IL is deeply, deeply flawed.

... of course, it is sometimes in the peoples' best interests for their human rights to be taken away...

sadly, not international law
to be a state, it must
1. be recognized both bilaterally (other states) and multilaterally (the UN)
2. have clear and defined borders
3. have effective control of its people (note this can include a democracy or dicatatorial govt)
there's a couple others but i haven't studied my IL exam yet.

I think nearly everyone should be able to agree that as it stands, IL is deeply, deeply flawed.

true dat. Corporations afforded the same rights as people under law. Trade is put ontop of human rights and the environment. It's a pretty long list.

... of course, it is sometimes in the peoples' best interests for their human rights to be taken away...

:? When we're talking about very basic human rights, I think that's hard to say, especially on the level of the state. HOw is anyone better off with no right to life?

Weren't their bombings in England as well as NI. I only started caring about the world 2 years ago, so current events i'm pretty up to par but in all truthfullness, my history is still catching up

Yes, there were bombings carried out in England and the Republic of Ireland as part of the 'troubles', but they are insignificant in number and casualties/fatalties caused compared to the amount of incidents in Northern Ireland.

The Canadian government, and almost all of the Canadians I've encountered, can't believe that the U.S. will succede on its present course in the Middle East, but that's because they don't understand how powerful the U.S. really is.
They won't succeed. Cause as usual the Yanks are completely and utterly ignorant of the fact that to those people there dying for the glory of Allah isn't just tough guy talk. It's an integral part of their culture and every day live. With the Shi'ites even more then the Sunni. Once the situation gets realy out of hand they will have to fight an entire nation. Imagine how it would have been if the US had invaded Japan the conventional way. Then you will have a pretty good idea what will happen. So unless they are going to nuke a couple of Iraqi cities, I'd advice you to get some stocks from coffin makers and undertakers. Or start your own. Move over Bill Gates. :D

The only thing that really bothers me is not even so much that the war is happening or that the Americans might really think they are liberating people who apparently aren't interested, they seem to be grateful that Saddam was taken out.. but that's about it, now they want America out as well.

To go back to what really bothers me is what right legally or otherwise did America have a right to unilaterally take this on themselves? Exactly who appointed them the keepers of what is right and what is wrong in the world? Last I checked no one has. It's not like Iraq was any threat to America. that's been all but proven.

So what begs the question is why does America keep butting into sovereign nations business? You do realize that the majority of people in the world live in oppressive cultures and live in poverty... what makes Americas laws and way of life better then those we call despots?

I know living outside of America in a country that doesn't have capital punishment for example we think the practice is rather oppressive as well. In fact Amnesty International speaks out against the United States for human rights violations all the time.. who is to say what is right or wrong? Just because we as a people have chosen to live a certain way it doesn't give us the right to impose our will onto a sovereign nation because we *think* it's the right thing to do when they haven't attacked us. It's just bullsh*t imo.

And the reason with which the US will fail is not because of a lack of military power. Stabalizing a country does not come out of repression and cannot be done through military might alone. Ironically, that's what dictators used.

Good point, the U.S. victory in the middle east will not just come from its primier military power, but from its overwhelming economic and, perhaps even more importantly, cultural power too. I haven't been giving the U.S. enough credit, thankyou for reminding me.

Ironically, that's what dictators used.

Then it can be done? :wink:

... of course, it is sometimes in the peoples' best interests for their human rights to be taken away...

:? When we're talking about very basic human rights, I think that's hard to say, especially on the level of the state. HOw is anyone better off with no right to life?

OK - I don't want to derail this topic completely here, but before we accept that an oppressive regime is one that interferes with peoples' human rights, it is necessary to define those human rights. If we accept the UN Charter on Human Rights as the document which defines these, then we have to include such rights as "Article 13 - Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." Which is generally unproblemmatic, until you come up against situations like quarantine. Here it can easily be argued that it is in the best interests of the people (as a whole) to strip this right away from an individual.

So, how do we define a repressive regime?

(Apologies, it is the middle of the night where I am and I may be making no sense at all...)

And the reason with which the US will fail is not because of a lack of military power. Stabalizing a country does not come out of repression and cannot be done through military might alone. Ironically, that's what dictators used.

Good point, the U.S. victory in the middle east will not just come from its primier military power, but from its overwhelming economic and, perhaps even more importantly, cultural power too. I haven't been giving the U.S. enough credit, thankyou for reminding me.

Ironically, that's what dictators used.

Then it can be done? :wink:

Cultural power? Somehow i don't think the Iraqi's are dying for western culture. Stabilizing a country requires gaining the trust of the people. This won't be done with guns. Furthermore, the mass privatization of Iraq (bill c-39 i believe) is not going to help this. THe bill allows for 100% foreign ownership without any responsibility to keep money within the country. This is no way to create a democracy.

Cause as usual the Yanks are completely and utterly ignorant ...

Note: anyone who uses 'Yank' as a term to describe all Americans is utterly ignorant of American history and culture...

The Canadian government, and almost all of the Canadians I've encountered, can't believe that the U.S. will succede on its present course in the Middle East, but that's because they don't understand how powerful the U.S. really is.
They won't succeed. Cause as usual the Yanks are completely and utterly ignorant of the fact that to those people there dying for the glory of Allah isn't just tough guy talk. It's an integral part of their culture and every day live. With the Shi'ites even more then the Sunni. Once the situation gets realy out of hand they will have to fight an entire nation. Imagine how it would have been if the US had invaded Japan the conventional way. Then you will have a pretty good idea what will happen. So unless they are going to nuke a couple of Iraqi cities, I'd advice you to get some stocks from coffin makers and undertakers. Or start your own. Move over Bill Gates. :D

Wow, those guys sure are indoctrinated to hate Americans aren't they, and they're even commiting terrorist actions against a coalition occupying force...wait...this almost sounds like... exactly what happened in...GERMANY! Much as you may wish America would fail, it just won't happen.

You are talking about an impossible ideal. Too many intolerants, not enough money or manpower.

Iraq was wrong.

So thus you consider it morally acceptable to allow oppresive regimes to reign unopposed? I don't think simply saying 'Iraq was wrong' really does justice to the situation.
Okay it was wrong and illegal.

How is the world going to police "oppresive regimes", and who is going to interpret who is in violation? Goes back to not enough money or manpower. Whether I think it is acceptable or not is a moot point.

So if you, in all your obvious wisdom, think that an action is an impratical application of resources, it therefore becomes both wrong and illegal?
In deference to your misunderstanding, I said that the war in Iraq was "wrong and illegal". However, since you mentioned it, the US has used an "impratical application of resources" to invade Iraq.

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of,
Please spare me. Canada was there in WW 1, WW 2, and the Korean War.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable for the United States of America to think that it can, over the coming centuries, topple every evil regime on Earth (they could probably topple them all tomorrow, it's the reconstruction that takes a longer commitment).
Will you or I really care what is going to happen over the coming centuries? Presently you have your hands full with a bunch of disorganized Iraqis, while Prince Osama plays hide and seek.

I think world domination will have to go on the back burner for a bit?

Cause as usual the Yanks are completely and utterly ignorant ...

Note: anyone who uses 'Yank' as a term to describe all Americans is utterly ignorant of American history and culture...
The North does dominate the South as far as I'm aware. So the term is accurate. Regardless of the Redneck in office right now.

So what begs the question is why does America keep butting into sovereign nations business? You do realize that the majority of people in the world live in oppressive cultures and live in poverty... what makes Americas laws and way of life better then those we call despots?

I think anyone, from any moral standpoint (except perhaps nihilists?) would condemn the actions of many despots. Saddam's actions, as a worn-out but relevant example, cannot reasnoably be justified, in my opinion. Neither can Hitler. When there is a massive overlapping consensus in terms of moral issues, I think it is reasonable to take this consensus seriously.

I know living outside of America in a country that doesn't have capital punishment for example we think the practice is rather oppressive as well. In fact Amnesty International speaks out against the United States for human rights violations all the time.. who is to say what is right or wrong? Just because we as a people have chosen to live a certain way it doesn't give us the right to impose our will onto a sovereign nation because we *think* it's the right thing to do when they haven't attacked us. It's just bullsh*t imo.

At some point, sovereignity must not be absolute. At some point I think we have a moral obligation to take action. Sometimes we do, more often we do not. Cases like Rwanda absolutely should have been interfered with, sovereignity be damned. ANyways, the kind of rules I'm thinking about would allow any walk of life which respects human rights and can government in the common good to maintain legitimacy (there may be a few other caveats, but I don't want to go into that right now). Islamic regimes are perfectly fine as long as they're not corrupt, oppressive or violate human rights. So are communist regimes, given the same qualities. It's not a matter of forcing western values on people, it's about ensuring a basic standard of human existence.

The Canadian government, and almost all of the Canadians I've encountered, can't believe that the U.S. will succede on its present course in the Middle East, but that's because they don't understand how powerful the U.S. really is.
They won't succeed. Cause as usual the Yanks are completely and utterly ignorant of the fact that to those people there dying for the glory of Allah isn't just tough guy talk. It's an integral part of their culture and every day live. With the Shi'ites even more then the Sunni. Once the situation gets realy out of hand they will have to fight an entire nation. Imagine how it would have been if the US had invaded Japan the conventional way. Then you will have a pretty good idea what will happen. So unless they are going to nuke a couple of Iraqi cities, I'd advice you to get some stocks from coffin makers and undertakers. Or start your own. Move over Bill Gates. :D

Wow, those guys sure are indoctrinated to hate Americans aren't they, and they're even commiting terrorist actions against a coalition occupying force...wait...this almost sounds like... exactly what happened in...GERMANY!
WTF are you talking about? :?
Much as you may wish America would fail, it just won't happen.
You haven't watched much news lately did you?
They already failed.
46 giftwrapped jarheads in the last week alone.

The only thing that really bothers me is not even so much that the war is happening or that the Americans might really think they are liberating people who apparently aren't interested, they seem to be grateful that Saddam was taken out.. but that's about it, now they want America out as well.

To go back to what really bothers me is what right legally or otherwise did America have a right to unilaterally take this on themselves? Exactly who appointed them the keepers of what is right and what is wrong in the world? Last I checked no one has. It's not like Iraq was any threat to America. that's been all but proven.

So what begs the question is why does America keep butting into sovereign nations business? You do realize that the majority of people in the world live in oppressive cultures and live in poverty... what makes Americas laws and way of life better then those we call despots?

I know living outside of America in a country that doesn't have capital punishment for example we think the practice is rather oppressive as well. In fact Amnesty International speaks out against the United States for human rights violations all the time.. who is to say what is right or wrong? Just because we as a people have chosen to live a certain way it doesn't give us the right to impose our will onto a sovereign nation because we *think* it's the right thing to do when they haven't attacked us. It's just bullsh*t imo.
Amen.

OK - I don't want to derail this topic completely here, but before we accept that an oppressive regime is one that interferes with peoples' human rights, it is necessary to define those human rights. If we accept the UN Charter on Human Rights as the document which defines these, then we have to include such rights as "Article 13 - Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." Which is generally unproblemmatic, until you come up against situations like quarantine. Here it can easily be argued that it is in the best interests of the people (as a whole) to strip this right away from an individual.

So, how do we define a repressive regime?

(Apologies, it is the middle of the night where I am and I may be making no sense at all...)

No, that makes sense. IT's not exactly an easy question, but it can be answered. First of all, the UN declaration is not a very good model, IMO. THese basic rights would be things like life, liberty, a right to personal property (but not necessarily a right to personal ownership of the means of production, this should be determined by the relevant state), a right to conscience, a right to practice religion, and a right to emigrate. Perhaps a few other things. Basically rules to ensure that no one's life is intolerable.

now perhaps some of these rights could be violated occasionally, like in the quarantine example, however I think in general they would stand up quite well.

A repressive state would also not govern in the interests of the people it supposedly represents. A legitimate state, however formed, has a fair legal system (i.e. likes are treated as likes) and is ruled by a common good sense of justice- the state is genuinely looking out for the interests of the people; i.e. corrupt regimes that exploit the people are not legitimate.

It's not a matter of forcing western values on people, it's about ensuring a basic standard of human existence.

But that very idea of "a basic standard of human existence" is in itself a western value - for some non-westerners their "basic standard of human existence" has lead them to strap explosives to their bellies and detonate them, or crash their planes into aircraft carriers. For them dying for what they believe in rates higher than anything that the western conception of "a basic standard" can give them.

You are talking about an impossible ideal. Too many intolerants, not enough money or manpower.

Iraq was wrong.

So thus you consider it morally acceptable to allow oppresive regimes to reign unopposed? I don't think simply saying 'Iraq was wrong' really does justice to the situation.
Okay it was wrong and illegal.

How is the world going to police "oppresive regimes", and who is going to interpret who is in violation? Goes back to not enough money or manpower. Whether I think it is acceptable or not is a moot point.

So if you, in all your obvious wisdom, think that an action is an impratical application of resources, it therefore becomes both wrong and illegal?
In deference to your misunderstanding, I said that the war in Iraq was "wrong and illegal". However, since you mentioned it, the US has used an "impratical application of resources" to invade Iraq.

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of,
Please spare me. Canada was there in WW 1, WW 2, and the Korean War.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable for the United States of America to think that it can, over the coming centuries, topple every evil regime on Earth (they could probably topple them all tomorrow, it's the reconstruction that takes a longer commitment).
Will you or I really care what is going to happen over the coming centuries? Presently you have your hands full with a bunch of disorganized Iraqis, while Prince Osama plays hide and seek.

I think world domination will have to go on the back burner for a bit?

That was almost coherent, I comend you for trying, but you really should read the other posts between this one and the one you're quoting.

P.S. Just because you lack vision and stratagy doesn't mean everyone has to. From its founding America has had, as one of its secondary foreign policy goals, the eventual spreading of democracy, freedom, and various other components of the American system. To some extent this process has taken place though simple osmosis of American and Western culture.

OK - I don't want to derail this topic completely here, but before we accept that an oppressive regime is one that interferes with peoples' human rights, it is necessary to define those human rights. If we accept the UN Charter on Human Rights as the document which defines these, then we have to include such rights as "Article 13 - Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." Which is generally unproblemmatic, until you come up against situations like quarantine. Here it can easily be argued that it is in the best interests of the people (as a whole) to strip this right away from an individual.

So, how do we define a repressive regime?

(Apologies, it is the middle of the night where I am and I may be making no sense at all...)

No, that makes sense. IT's not exactly an easy question, but it can be answered. First of all, the UN declaration is not a very good model, IMO. THese basic rights would be things like life, liberty, a right to personal property (but not necessarily a right to personal ownership of the means of production, this should be determined by the relevant state), a right to conscience, a right to practice religion, and a right to emigrate. Perhaps a few other things. Basically rules to ensure that no one's life is intolerable.

now perhaps some of these rights could be violated occasionally, like in the quarantine example, however I think in general they would stand up quite well.

A repressive state would also not govern in the interests of the people it supposedly represents. A legitimate state, however formed, has a fair legal system (i.e. likes are treated as likes) and is ruled by a common good sense of justice- the state is genuinely looking out for the interests of the people; i.e. corrupt regimes that exploit the people are not legitimate.

what about economic rights? Look at the exploitation in export processing zones? Having more than 50% of the world living on $1-$2 (don't remember the exact stat) is a huge human rights abuse.

It's not a matter of forcing western values on people, it's about ensuring a basic standard of human existence.

But that very idea of "a basic standard of human existence" is in itself a western value - for some non-westerners their "basic standard of human existence" has lead them to strap explosives to their bellies and detonate them, or crash their planes into aircraft carriers. For them dying for what they believe in rates higher than anything that the western conception of "a basic standard" can give them.

Okay, but what impact does that have on our potential international law? We're clearly not going to give people the right to terrorize each other. Terrorists, in the modern sense, cannot reasonably be justified, IMO. What I mean by a basic standard of human existence is the kind of society that any reasonable person could potential tolerate and cooperate with. Things like terrorism cannot reasonably be justified- can you really expect me or any other person to accept the legitimacy of 9/11 or something similar?

From its founding America has had, as one of its secondary foreign policy goals, the eventual spreading of democracy

like invading Chile, overthrowing Allende and replacing him with Pinochet?
Or actively supporting a coup in venezuela today
or supporting Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein?

From its founding America has had, as one of its secondary foreign policy goals, the eventual spreading of democracy, freedom, and various other components of the American system.

Are you saying that since the USA was founded one of its secondary foreign policy goals has been to destabilise sovereign foreign governments?

what about economic rights? Look at the exploitation in export processing zones? Having more than 50% of the world living on $1-$2 (don't remember the exact stat) is a huge human rights abuse.

Economic rights are probably to difficult to reconcile with a fair, liberal international system of law; situations of mass poverty should be addressed, but I don't really want to into that because it's kind of a different problem. I think potentially some international redistribution of wealth might be morally necessary, but again that's a whole different can of worms. Basically you can't just say "NO MORE EPZs!" without providing some other way to feed these people.

From its founding America has had, as one of its secondary foreign policy goals, the eventual spreading of democracy

like invading Chile, overthrowing Allende and replacing him with Pinochet?
Or actively supporting a coup in venezuela today
or supporting Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein?

Now, now, ET didn't say that spreading democracy was its only foreign policy goal.

From its founding America has had, as one of its secondary foreign policy goals, the eventual spreading of democracy

like invading Chile, overthrowing Allende and replacing him with Pinochet?
Or actively supporting a coup in venezuela today
or supporting Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein?
Yes. That was all in the interest of democracy. They were possible candidates for the US to invade. So the US could play the part of good samaritan by taking out a naughty dictator.

what about economic rights? Look at the exploitation in export processing zones? Having more than 50% of the world living on $1-$2 (don't remember the exact stat) is a huge human rights abuse.

Economic rights are probably to difficult to reconcile with a fair, liberal international system of law; situations of mass poverty should be addressed, but I don't really want to into that because it's kind of a different problem. I think potentially some international redistribution of wealth might be morally necessary, but again that's a whole different can of worms. Basically you can't just say "NO MORE EPZs!" without providing some other way to feed these people.

I'm not saying get rid of 3rd world jobs. But explain to me why workers in the zones don't even get basic human rights?

The Canadian government, and almost all of the Canadians I've encountered, can't believe that the U.S. will succede on its present course in the Middle East, but that's because they don't understand how powerful the U.S. really is.
They won't succeed. Cause as usual the Yanks are completely and utterly ignorant of the fact that to those people there dying for the glory of Allah isn't just tough guy talk. It's an integral part of their culture and every day live. With the Shi'ites even more then the Sunni. Once the situation gets realy out of hand they will have to fight an entire nation. Imagine how it would have been if the US had invaded Japan the conventional way. Then you will have a pretty good idea what will happen. So unless they are going to nuke a couple of Iraqi cities, I'd advice you to get some stocks from coffin makers and undertakers. Or start your own. Move over Bill Gates. :D

Wow, those guys sure are indoctrinated to hate Americans aren't they, and they're even commiting terrorist actions against a coalition occupying force...wait...this almost sounds like... exactly what happened in...GERMANY!
WTF are you talking about? :?
Much as you may wish America would fail, it just won't happen.
You haven't watched much news lately did you?
They already failed.
46 giftwrapped jarheads in the last week alone.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that those 46 met the quota for failiure. We lost a lot more than 500 men to Nazi terrorists during the reconstrution of Germany, but maybe we should have then just declared failiure and gone home. The Bonhomme Richard sank under Paul Jone's feet but he still captured the Serapis, are the other western powers now such cowards? Good God sir, let us hope that most men of the west don't roll over and say die as easily as you.

Okay, but what impact does that have on our potential international law? We're clearly not going to give people the right to terrorize each other. Terrorists, in the modern sense, cannot reasonably be justified, IMO. What I mean by a basic standard of human existence is the kind of society that any reasonable person could potential tolerate and cooperate with. Things like terrorism cannot reasonably be justified- can you really expect me or any other person to accept the legitimacy of 9/11 or something similar?

No, I am not expecting you to accept the legitimacy of 9/11 or similar here, but I am pointing out that your conception of what "any reasonable person" should believe is one which is a characteristically western 20th/21st century one.

From its founding America has had, as one of its secondary foreign policy goals, the eventual spreading of democracy, freedom, and various other components of the American system.

Are you saying that since the USA was founded one of its secondary foreign policy goals has been to destabilise sovereign foreign governments?

Of course, would you like me to list them in order?
(If you do it will have to be tomorrow, I have to go.)

I'm not saying get rid of 3rd world jobs. But explain to me why workers in the zones don't even get basic human rights?

Well, I think given our basic sense of human rights, which I loosely described above, they do have basic human rights, providing they are able to leave the EPZs. What right do you think they don't have there? I realize it's a tricky question, and I also think it's SOMEWHAT peripheral, if only because there's much greater abuses. generally speaking, I think say Sierra Leone is a bigger issue than South Korea. In situations of extreme poverty, I think there's usually other factors, like a corrupt dictatorial government, which exacerbate problems.

The Canadian government, and almost all of the Canadians I've encountered, can't believe that the U.S. will succede on its present course in the Middle East, but that's because they don't understand how powerful the U.S. really is.
They won't succeed. Cause as usual the Yanks are completely and utterly ignorant of the fact that to those people there dying for the glory of Allah isn't just tough guy talk. It's an integral part of their culture and every day live. With the Shi'ites even more then the Sunni. Once the situation gets realy out of hand they will have to fight an entire nation. Imagine how it would have been if the US had invaded Japan the conventional way. Then you will have a pretty good idea what will happen. So unless they are going to nuke a couple of Iraqi cities, I'd advice you to get some stocks from coffin makers and undertakers. Or start your own. Move over Bill Gates. :D

Wow, those guys sure are indoctrinated to hate Americans aren't they, and they're even commiting terrorist actions against a coalition occupying force...wait...this almost sounds like... exactly what happened in...GERMANY!
WTF are you talking about? :?
Much as you may wish America would fail, it just won't happen.
You haven't watched much news lately did you?
They already failed.
46 giftwrapped jarheads in the last week alone.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that those 46 met the quota for failiure. We lost a lot more than 500 men to Nazi terrorists during the reconstrution of Germany, but maybe we should have then just declared failiure and gone home. The Bonhomme Richard sank under Paul Jone's feet but he still captured the Serapis, are the other western powers now such cowards? Good God sir, let us hope that most men of the west don't roll over and say die as easily as you.
Ah, but those 46 are just the beginning. The unrests, with El Sadr, have only started about a week ago. I'd say it's a pretty good start. :D
And I'm not rolling over. Whatever gave you that idea?

No, I am not expecting you to accept the legitimacy of 9/11 or similar here, but I am pointing out that your conception of what "any reasonable person" should believe is one which is a characteristically western 20th/21st century one.

Maybe partly, but part of the goal of any international system of law should be to allow other forms of government. I don't want to say no Islamic regimes, or no communists or something.

When I say reasonable, what I basically mean is a person or nation that is willing to cooperate, discuss, and respect other people or nations, who can agree to follow a system of laws even if they don't get their way entirely, and not because of fear of enforcement, but out of a sense of 'common good'. So what we're asking is for regimes that are willing to cooperate internationally, peacefully and collaboratively to structure international law. What we're trying to do is form a law that ALL of these reasonable governments can agree to, which is why I'm making my human rights quite uncomprehensive. Any collaborative government, who is actually interested in the good of it's people, should be able to agree to these basic principles and laws. The rights I listed would be some I think would be in these laws and principles. hmm... I don't know how clear that was, I'll try and clarify if needed.

I'm not saying get rid of 3rd world jobs. But explain to me why workers in the zones don't even get basic human rights?

Well, I think given our basic sense of human rights, which I loosely described above, they do have basic human rights, providing they are able to leave the EPZs. What right do you think they don't have there? I realize it's a tricky question, and I also think it's SOMEWHAT peripheral, if only because there's much greater abuses. generally speaking, I think say Sierra Leone is a bigger issue than South Korea. In situations of extreme poverty, I think there's usually other factors, like a corrupt dictatorial government, which exacerbate problems.

my closest source with me is Naomi Klein's no logo, but if you want i can get others

Wal-Mart/Kthie Lee handbag at Liang Shi Handbag factory of China: No factory exits, dirty cramped dorms, 10 to a room for 70 hours a week workers get 3.44, no benefits, no legal work contract, workers have never heard of a code of conduct

other things on the list, no unions, emplyed fined if late/resting/found talking, forced mornings calistentics, forced overtime, fired if this si refused, overtime rate not paid, humilation, screaming, corporate punishment, fines for being pregnent, fines for talking, children working, workers being forced to work 24 hour shifts, forced amphetamize usage.

as well, EPZ's have private guards with m-16's guarding em. Union organizers get fired if they're lucky.

I'll call in again tomorrow and see how the thread is going: I have got to the point where I can no longer tell one persons ironic responses froma nother persons serious responses. Later.

So what begs the question is why does America keep butting into sovereign nations business? You do realize that the majority of people in the world live in oppressive cultures and live in poverty... what makes Americas laws and way of life better then those we call despots?

I think anyone, from any moral standpoint (except perhaps nihilists?) would condemn the actions of many despots. Saddam's actions, as a worn-out but relevant example, cannot reasnoably be justified, in my opinion. Neither can Hitler. When there is a massive overlapping consensus in terms of moral issues, I think it is reasonable to take this consensus seriously.


Mallberta this is all fine and good.. however it doesn't address the main and most important question to me..

What gave the Americans the right to do this? You keep saying on "moral" grounds.. but who's moral grounds? the Americans? That is not a valid argument when dealing with a sovereign nation of people who don't share western culture nor beliefs.

So, I ask again, what gave the United States the right to legally take this action. Morality isn't really a valid argument given that the morality of the west is not seen as the same morality of most Muslims.. in fact most Muslims think our way of living and sense of morality is leading us straight to the depths of hell (if you believe in that sort of nonsense) however, it is valid.. why does American or more widely "Western" morality and culture trump that of a different people's and nation?

As for Rwanda Mallberta or even Kosovo.. we didn't invade those countries, we went in as peacekeepers. There is quite a huge difference between invasion and peacekeeping.

my closest source with me is Naomi Klein's no logo, but if you want i can get others

Which is an excellent book. HOwever, I think the sections on international trade are a lot weaker that the sections on branding. Just my opinion.

Wal-Mart/Kthie Lee handbag at Liang Shi Handbag factory of China: No factory exits, dirty cramped dorms, 10 to a room for 70 hours a week workers get 3.44, no benefits, no legal work contract, workers have never heard of a code of conduct

other things on the list, no unions, emplyed fined if late/resting/found talking, forced mornings calistentics, forced overtime, fired if this si refused, overtime rate not paid, humilation, screaming, corporate punishment, fines for being pregnent, fines for talking, children working, workers being forced to work 24 hour shifts, forced amphetamize usage.

as well, EPZ's have private guards with m-16's guarding em. Union organizers get fired if they're lucky.
I'm not sure entirely how to answer this, but I'll ask you at least a couple of questions to maybe clarify:
Do you think these things should be tolerable or intolerable in our international society?
Are these things already covered by the basic rights I'm proposing (i.e. life, liberty, personal property)?
Is it plausible to make laws which would prohibit this behavious? How would they be structured?

So what begs the question is why does America keep butting into sovereign nations business? You do realize that the majority of people in the world live in oppressive cultures and live in poverty... what makes Americas laws and way of life better then those we call despots?

I think anyone, from any moral standpoint (except perhaps nihilists?) would condemn the actions of many despots. Saddam's actions, as a worn-out but relevant example, cannot reasnoably be justified, in my opinion. Neither can Hitler. When there is a massive overlapping consensus in terms of moral issues, I think it is reasonable to take this consensus seriously.



Mallberta this is all fine and good.. however it doesn't address the main and most important question to me..

What gave the Americans the right to do this? You keep saying on "moral" grounds.. but who's moral grounds? the Americans? That is not a valid argument when dealing with a sovereign nation of people who don't share western culture nor beliefs.

So, I ask again, what gave the United States the right to legally take this action. Morality isn't really a valid argument given that the morality of the west is not seen as the same morality of most Muslims.. in fact most Muslims think our way of living and sense of morality is leading us straight to the depths of hell (if you believe in that sort of nonsense) however, it is valid.. why does American or more widely "Western" morality and culture trump that of a different people's and nation?

As for Rwanda Mallberta or even Kosovo.. we didn't invade those countries, we went in as peacekeepers. There is quite a huge difference between invasion and peacekeeping.
It's kinda funny when (pro)Americans start blubbering about:"It was the moral thing to do."
Considering they put the good man in power to be begin with.
That kinda rieks of a long term plan to make sure the US doesn't run out of enemies.

You are talking about an impossible ideal. Too many intolerants, not enough money or manpower.

Iraq was wrong.

So thus you consider it morally acceptable to allow oppresive regimes to reign unopposed? I don't think simply saying 'Iraq was wrong' really does justice to the situation.
Okay it was wrong and illegal.

How is the world going to police "oppresive regimes", and who is going to interpret who is in violation? Goes back to not enough money or manpower. Whether I think it is acceptable or not is a moot point.

So if you, in all your obvious wisdom, think that an action is an impratical application of resources, it therefore becomes both wrong and illegal?
In deference to your misunderstanding, I said that the war in Iraq was "wrong and illegal". However, since you mentioned it, the US has used an "impratical application of resources" to invade Iraq.

On a side note, if you are from Canada then you probably have no idea what a real western military force is capable of,
Please spare me. Canada was there in WW 1, WW 2, and the Korean War.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable for the United States of America to think that it can, over the coming centuries, topple every evil regime on Earth (they could probably topple them all tomorrow, it's the reconstruction that takes a longer commitment).
Will you or I really care what is going to happen over the coming centuries? Presently you have your hands full with a bunch of disorganized Iraqis, while Prince Osama plays hide and seek.

I think world domination will have to go on the back burner for a bit?

That was almost coherent, I comend you for trying, but you really should read the other posts between this one and the one you're quoting.
I did read them. Ho hum.

P.S. Just because you lack vision and stratagy doesn't mean everyone has to. From its founding America has had, as one of its secondary foreign policy goals, the eventual spreading of democracy, freedom, and various other components of the American system.
And you are damn well gonna give it to them to, whether they want it or not, by incinerating their people. Bravo, I am truly impressed. Or what was that expression you used? Oh I remember, turn them into "glass parking lots"? Your sense of democracy/freedom makes me want to vomit. There was another little guy running around in the middle of the last century with the very same delusions of grandeur dancing in his brain. That is until he commited suicide.

Mallberta this is all fine and good.. however it doesn't address the main and most important question to me..

What gave the Americans the right to do this? You keep saying on "moral" grounds.. but who's moral grounds? the Americans? That is not a valid argument when dealing with a sovereign nation of people who don't share western culture nor beliefs.

:? I think I've been trying to answer this most of the thread. I certainly tried to explain it to bodies without organs. I don't think basic human rights are really a western value per se; again, I invite you to read over some of my other posts because I don't really want to write it all out again.

So, I ask again, what gave the United States the right to legally take this action. Morality isn't really a valid argument given that the morality of the west is not seen as the same morality of most Muslims.. in fact most Muslims think our way of living and sense of morality is leading us straight to the depths of hell (if you believe in that sort of nonsense) however, it is valid.. why does American or more widely "Western" morality and culture trump that of a different people's and nation?

Well basically, in the case of Iraq, Hussein wasn't acceptable according to ANYONE'S moral system, including his own peoples. I think that should be somewhat clear cut? I'm not trying to say all Muslims have to live in liberal democracies; I don't even think democracies are necessarily appropriate in thier situations. I have no problem with Islamic theocracies, as long as they respect the basic elements of human existence.

As for Rwanda Mallberta or even Kosovo.. we didn't invade those countries, we went in as peacekeepers. There is quite a huge difference between invasion and peacekeeping.

So it's ok if the government kills people then? I don't think there's much of a distinction. IF a government is greviously abusing it's people, I don't think we should tolerate it. It certainly shouldn't be considered an equal on the international level!

It's kinda funny when (pro)Americans start blubbering about:"It was the moral thing to do."
Considering they put the good man in power to be begin with.
That kinda rieks of a long term plan to make sure the US doesn't run out of enemies.
:roll: I'm neither pro-American nor blubbering. Putting Hussein in power was certainly an immoral action. As was supplying him with weapons in the eighties. But that doesn't tell us much about what we should morally do right now. It's like if a person is a criminal his entire life, it doesn't mean he cannot do anything moral.

Anyways, I'm not saying invading Iraq was moral per se, but that it COULD (have?) been morally justifiable, and that in certain cases upsetting regimes is acceptable and possiblly obligatory.

It's kinda funny when (pro)Americans start blubbering about:"It was the moral thing to do."
Considering they put the good man in power to be begin with.
That kinda rieks of a long term plan to make sure the US doesn't run out of enemies.
Too funny!! :lol:

I'm not sure entirely how to answer this, but I'll ask you at least a couple of questions to maybe clarify:
Do you think these things should be tolerable or intolerable in our international society?
Are these things already covered by the basic rights I'm proposing (i.e. life, liberty, personal property)?
Is it plausible to make laws which would prohibit this behavious? How would they be structured?
I think they are intolerable. I know that one of the few advantages the 3rd world has to offer is cheaper labour, but there shoudl be a limit. At the ages they are getting paid, they're actually becoming poorer when compared to the growing riches of the 1st world.

On paper, they're afforded these rights. The countries themselves have laws against these sort of things. Doesn't mean that it's not practiced. Similarly, what you suggested would to cover these abuses (it's more i felt that economic rights abuses are often neglected when talking about human rights abuses).

In terms of making this work, the political will simply does not exist. The average citizen, although not evil, does not consciously consider the conditions the products they buy are being made under. Examples: the gap and wal-mart are 2 of the most successful corporations in the world. To accomplish what i'd like, trade agreements would have to have enviromental aspects to ensure sustainable development. They would also have to be open to independent monitors to ensure that human rights are being followed.

It's kinda funny when (pro)Americans start blubbering about:"It was the moral thing to do."
Considering they put the good man in power to be begin with.
That kinda rieks of a long term plan to make sure the US doesn't run out of enemies.
:roll: I'm neither pro-American nor blubbering. Putting Hussein in power was certainly an immoral action. As was supplying him with weapons in the eighties. But that doesn't tell us much about what we should morally do right now. It's like if a person is a criminal his entire life, it doesn't mean he cannot do anything moral.

Anyways, I'm not saying invading Iraq was moral per se, but that it COULD (have?) been morally justifiable, and that in certain cases upsetting regimes is acceptable and possiblly obligatory.
Morally justifiable? Maybe. If they had used that line from the get go and didn't change the reasons for the war along the line to suit their needs. Cause thats certainly not very believebal, is it? And what cases would that be?

On paper, they're afforded these rights. The countries themselves have laws against these sort of things. Doesn't mean that it's not practiced. Similarly, what you suggested would to cover these abuses (it's more i felt that economic rights abuses are often neglected when talking about human rights abuses).

So really what you're thinking is that human rights get overlooked in the name of economics? If so, I agree, and I think it's a tragedy.

In terms of making this work, the political will simply does not exist. The average citizen, although not evil, does not consciously consider the conditions the products they buy are being made under.
I do, as much as is possible given my student's budget.
Examples: the gap and wal-mart are 2 of the most successful corporations in the world. To accomplish what i'd like, trade agreements would have to have enviromental aspects to ensure sustainable development. They would also have to be open to independent monitors to ensure that human rights are being followed.

Actually, most current trade agreements do have enviromental provisions, including GATT and NAFTA. It's a matter of our governments actually using these provisions to secure change. I think that most of this is not as unrealizable as we might think, especially because of the admitted failure of the Washington Consensus. The political will does exist, I think, but we really need to change many of our current institutions to harness this will.

Anyways, I'm not saying invading Iraq was moral per se, but that it COULD (have?) been morally justifiable, and that in certain cases upsetting regimes is acceptable and possiblly obligatory.
Morally justifiable? Maybe. If they had used that line from the get go and didn't change the reasons for the war along the line to suit their needs. Cause thats certainly not very believebal, is it? And what cases would that be?

Sure, I agree the US did not handle this very well, and I don't think they went into Iraq for any moral reason. I'm just saying that sometimes coercion is justified.

The kind of cases I'm referring to are described previously in this thread. Basically gross violations of human rights and massive government corruption and abuses.

Actually, most current trade agreements do have enviromental provisions, including GATT and NAFTA. It's a matter of our governments actually using these provisions to secure change. I think that most of this is not as unrealizable as we might think, especially because of the admitted failure of the Washington Consensus. The political will does exist, I think, but we really need to change many of our current institutions to harness this will.

Actually NAFTA, the GATT and the WTO enviromental provisions create a glass cieling. Often, enviromental barriers are struck down as a barrier to trade. Cites the famous MMT in canada's gasoline example.

Actually NAFTA, the GATT and the WTO enviromental provisions create a glass cieling. Often, enviromental barriers are struck down as a barrier to trade. Cites the famous MMT in canada's gasoline example.

Well, on the other hand sometimes they are supported. I agree there needs to be reform; but I support reform, not outright abolishment. Here's the WTO site with relevant cases.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis00_e.htm

Anyways, I'm not saying invading Iraq was moral per se, but that it COULD (have?) been morally justifiable, and that in certain cases upsetting regimes is acceptable and possiblly obligatory.
Morally justifiable? Maybe. If they had used that line from the get go and didn't change the reasons for the war along the line to suit their needs. Cause thats certainly not very believebal, is it? And what cases would that be?

Sure, I agree the US did not handle this very well, and I don't think they went into Iraq for any moral reason. I'm just saying that sometimes coercion is justified.

The kind of cases I'm referring to are described previously in this thread. Basically gross violations of human rights and massive government corruption and abuses.
In that case the moral stuff doesn't apply. Cause there are plenty of oppresive regimes left that fit the criteria who aren't on the list of "Rogue Nations&Axis of Evil". I don't see the US "liberating" those, Simbabwe for example, anytime soon.

Putting Hussein in power was certainly an immoral action. As was supplying him with weapons in the eighties. But that doesn't tell us much about what we should morally do right now. It's like if a person is a criminal his entire life, it doesn't mean he cannot do anything moral.

Anyways, I'm not saying invading Iraq was moral per se, but that it COULD (have?) been morally justifiable, and that in certain cases upsetting regimes is acceptable and possiblly obligatory.
How can Saddam be judged as "immoral", by the people who propped him up?

A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war.

That makes them just as guilty.

So how do you go about setting up an institution to remove "immoral" governments, when those governments are also "immoral"?

Actually NAFTA, the GATT and the WTO enviromental provisions create a glass cieling. Often, enviromental barriers are struck down as a barrier to trade. Cites the famous MMT in canada's gasoline example.

Well, on the other hand sometimes they are supported. I agree there needs to be reform; but I support reform, not outright abolishment. Here's the WTO site with relevant cases.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis00_e.htm

I agree, reform is neccessary to make these issues far more important. There are too many examples of corporate abuses of labour and environment.

In that case the moral stuff doesn't apply. Cause there are plenty of oppresive regimes left that fit the criteria who aren't on the list of "Rogue Nations&Axis of Evil". I don't see the US "liberating" those, Simbabwe for example, anytime soon.

Again, this is like saying if we don't do everything all at one, we should do nothing, which doesn't ring true with me. I think we SHOULD liberate, stablize, or in somewhat pressure ZImbabwe. I'm NOT arguing for PNAC or something, I'm arguing for an international system of law which allows for intervention into intolerable nations. You can't seem to see past your own sense of my arguments. Please, take the time to read what I'm saying before you try and deride my posts.

How can Saddam be judged as "immoral", by the people who propped him up?
Are you daft? That was under another administration!!! :lol:

great thread, i'm off to bed though

Mallberta this is all fine and good.. however it doesn't address the main and most important question to me..

What gave the Americans the right to do this? You keep saying on "moral" grounds.. but who's moral grounds? the Americans? That is not a valid argument when dealing with a sovereign nation of people who don't share western culture nor beliefs.

:? I think I've been trying to answer this most of the thread. I certainly tried to explain it to bodies without organs. I don't think basic human rights are really a western value per se; again, I invite you to read over some of my other posts because I don't really want to write it all out again.

So, I ask again, what gave the United States the right to legally take this action. Morality isn't really a valid argument given that the morality of the west is not seen as the same morality of most Muslims.. in fact most Muslims think our way of living and sense of morality is leading us straight to the depths of hell (if you believe in that sort of nonsense) however, it is valid.. why does American or more widely "Western" morality and culture trump that of a different people's and nation?

Well basically, in the case of Iraq, Hussein wasn't acceptable according to ANYONE'S moral system, including his own peoples. I think that should be somewhat clear cut? I'm not trying to say all Muslims have to live in liberal democracies; I don't even think democracies are necessarily appropriate in thier situations. I have no problem with Islamic theocracies, as long as they respect the basic elements of human existence.

As for Rwanda Mallberta or even Kosovo.. we didn't invade those countries, we went in as peacekeepers. There is quite a huge difference between invasion and peacekeeping.

So it's ok if the government kills people then? I don't think there's much of a distinction. IF a government is greviously abusing it's people, I don't think we should tolerate it. It certainly shouldn't be considered an equal on the international level!

It's weak Mallberta.. it's weak.. you keep saying "moral" grounds.. basic human rights.. so then would you also agree that the United States lives in a glass house and throws stones? They do have capital punishment which is a breach of human rights if you want to get all literal here.

The point is, there was an active genocide going on in Rwanda and Kosovo.. so we went in as peacekeepers. We didn't try to invade a sovereign nation that had not attacked us. We went in to protect the people. Invasion is a far cry from trying to "protect" people. This is nothing more then a country that has strategic significants to the United States and they are trying to impose their way of life onto it as to make it more friendly to American interest. If you really believe that a country has ever sent it's people in as an invading force to "liberate" a people.. well.. that's just silly.They have always had their own interest at heart. The way you tell the story you want intelligent people to believe this is nothing but an act of kindness and protecting human rights. It's got nothing to do with it, but it sure sells, doesn't it!

How can Saddam be judged as "immoral", by the people who propped him up?

A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war.

That makes them just as guilty.

So how do you go about setting up an institution to remove "immoral" governments, when those governments are also "immoral"?

To being with, we can't go back in time. THe US should never again involve itself with those kinds of regimes. They are intolerable, and the US's behavious, while understandable at the time, is unforgivable.

However, there is a giant difference between the US and nations like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Sierra Leone. The US may have had a checkered past, but that does not preclude the creation and implentation of a moral system of international law.

How can Saddam be judged as "immoral", by the people who propped him up?
Are you daft? That was under another administration!!! :lol:
Well then, we should make their punishment retroactive :lol:

A: "Kill them all. The Devil will know his own." -- Simon Ilyan

The Canadian government, and almost all of the Canadians I've encountered, can't believe that the U.S. will succede on its present course in the Middle East, but that's because they don't understand how powerful the U.S. really is.
They won't succeed. Cause as usual the Yanks are completely and utterly ignorant of the fact that to those people there dying for the glory of Allah isn't just tough guy talk. It's an integral part of their culture and every day live. With the Shi'ites even more then the Sunni. Once the situation gets realy out of hand they will have to fight an entire nation. Imagine how it would have been if the US had invaded Japan the conventional way. Then you will have a pretty good idea what will happen. So unless they are going to nuke a couple of Iraqi cities, I'd advice you to get some stocks from coffin makers and undertakers. Or start your own. Move over Bill Gates. :D

Wow, those guys sure are indoctrinated to hate Americans aren't they, and they're even commiting terrorist actions against a coalition occupying force...wait...this almost sounds like... exactly what happened in...GERMANY!
WTF are you talking about? :?
Much as you may wish America would fail, it just won't happen.
You haven't watched much news lately did you?
They already failed.
46 giftwrapped jarheads in the last week alone.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that those 46 met the quota for failiure. We lost a lot more than 500 men to Nazi terrorists during the reconstrution of Germany, but maybe we should have then just declared failiure and gone home. The Bonhomme Richard sank under Paul Jone's feet but he still captured the Serapis, are the other western powers now such cowards? Good God sir, let us hope that most men of the west don't roll over and say die as easily as you.
Ah, but those 46 are just the beginning. The unrests, with El Sadr, have only started about a week ago. I'd say it's a pretty good start. :D
And I'm not rolling over. Whatever gave you that idea?

As point of historical info the Nazi terrorists were call the Werewolves and were history by 1946. What's happening in Iraq today in some ways resembles the Tet Offensive of 1968, but only in some ways.

The Viet Cong were eliminated as a fighting force after Tet, casualties among them were extremely high. On the close order of 90% killed or crippled with their fighting force reduced to less than 30,000 from a high of around 250,000. Militarily it was a disaster of the first order, right up there with Custer's Last Stand at Little Bighorn.

The situation in Iraq is similar in that those who are coming out and fighting are being destroyed. These were individuals native to Iraq and their allies that had no intention of living peacefully in a newly free Iraq and would have been politically dangerous if they lived. Now they have crossed the line from rhetoric to violence and will be destroyed. Iraq will be the better for it.

Of course, after Tet, the NVA took over the civil war fighting in the South leading eventually to its fall in 1975 when the US government demonstrated a profound lack of will by refusing to provide the support that it had agreed to as part of the Paris Peace Accords (leaving South Vietnam naked before its enemy). I note a similar attack by the North using conventional forces in 1972 was dealt with in a fashion similar to what happened to the VietCong in 1968. Those surviving Viet Cong in 1975 were some of the first to be purged of course. Those who didn't flee were mostly executed.

For now, the local Baathists and there terrorist allies are having a last hurrah before dying, but will it really be the last? True, these corpses won't bother us or the Iraqi people ever again, but the foreign neighbors in Syria and Iran who are supporting them will no doubt continue to try to destabilize the new Iraq. Of course, there are no sanctuaries for these losers to retreat to and lick their wounds until they are ready to try again.

Given the proliferation of WMD and of terrorist organizations allied to rogue / failed states, we can either clean up the mess by destroying these organizations and eliminating their personnel while creating situations that will end the problems that lead us here (mainly the failed states and their discontented populaces). Either that or accept that occaisional cities will vanish in bursts of instant sunshine in the not to distant future or biowarfare plagues will kill significant percentages of your nation's populace*; and if you don't like that answer then I guess we could just start playing by "Hama rules". Reminds me of that old Star Trek joke: "Q: Why are there no Arabs on Star Trek? A: Because it's set in the future."

* Hardly necessary to kill people in job lots as Al Queda has already demonstrated. Just a few hundred kilos of high explosive in the right place and time can easily kill a quarter million people. Hell one of the reasons the Egyptians are so reasonable vis-a-vis Israel compared to most of the Middle East is that if the Aswan High Dam goes so will the vast majority of the Egyptian populace as the entire Nile Valley gets swept clean from these new ruins all the way to the sea. A small kiloton+ device detonated behind the dam would be more than large enough. Something similar involving Hoover Dam, the Colorado River and Lake Mead would be unpleasant to us and our Mexican neighbors but not the Apocalypse the way the destruction of the Aswan High Dam would be.

In conclusion, you can't peacefully coexist with people whose primary goal in life is to kill you and yours. All you can do is exterminate them like the rabid curs they choose to be and get on with your lives. Or you could join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and await the end!

Emperor Pro-Tem "Big D" :evil:
"There is no God but God, and Darwin is Its Prophet." -- Sashkash

How can Saddam be judged as "immoral", by the people who propped him up?
Are you daft? That was under another administration!!! :lol:
Well then, we should make their punishment retroactive :lol:
I realy like that "another administration" argument. Cause something just accured to me. Israel and the Jews in general owe Germany billions!!!! You know, the money they recieved as compensation for the holocaust. Cause that also was under another administration. They were not entitled to it. :wink:

How can Saddam be judged as "immoral", by the people who propped him up?

A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war.

That makes them just as guilty.

So how do you go about setting up an institution to remove "immoral" governments, when those governments are also "immoral"?

To being with, we can't go back in time. THe US should never again involve itself with those kinds of regimes. They are intolerable, and the US's behavious, while understandable at the time, is unforgivable.

However, there is a giant difference between the US and nations like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Sierra Leone. The US may have had a checkered past, but that does not preclude the creation and implentation of a moral system of international law.
How about striving for world peace, and a better co-operation amongst nations, through exchange of ideas, and respect?

The US is involved in too many covert operations and until they end that practice, they will continue to have the Osamas and the Saddams :cry:

BTW don't hold your breath.

It's weak Mallberta.. it's weak.. you keep saying "moral" grounds.. basic human rights.. so then would you also agree that the United States lives in a glass house and throws stones? They do have capital punishment which is a breach of human rights if you want to get all literal here.

Steph, read the title of my thread. Is it 'Why invading Iraq was good and proper and entirely correct'? No, it is not. I'm trying to discuss what we should do with intolerable regimes. You seem to be saying we should let them be, regardless of circumstances. I'm not even saying that we should have invaded Iraq, merely that sometimes these invasions are morally correct or even necssary!

The point is, there was an active genocide going on in Rwanda and Kosovo.. so we went in as peacekeepers. We didn't try to invade a sovereign nation that had not attacked us. We went in to protect the people.
And invading a foregin country (NOTE- I'm not explicitly talking about Iraq here) whose government is persecuting its people is different how exactly? Governments are not legitimate simply because they are governments, they have a duty towards their people. I do not think we should tolerate all governments simply because they declare themselves governments.

Invasion is a far cry from trying to "protect" people. This is nothing more then a country that has strategic significants to the United States and they are trying to impose their way of life onto it as to make it more friendly to American interest. If you really believe that a country has ever sent it's people in as an invading force to "liberate" a people.. well.. that's just silly.They have always had their own interest at heart. The way you tell the story you want intelligent people to believe this is nothing but an act of kindness and protecting human rights. It's got nothing to do with it, but it sure sells, doesn't it!

Gee Steph, thanks for taking the time to read my thread. THat's fantastic. It's unfortunate that you entirely missed the point. Iraq wasn't about protecting people, and I never tried to say it was. I'm saying that invading Iraq COULD have been morally justifiable, and that any reasonable consistent system of international law would have allowed for interference in Iraq, not like the US did, but some form of coercion. Seriously Steph, you really misread this thing.

How about striving for world peace, and a better co-operation amongst nations, through exchange of ideas, and respect?

The US is involved in too many covert operations and until they end that practice, they will continue to have the Osamas and the Saddams :cry:

BTW don't hold your breath.

:shock:

THAT'S WHAT I'M ARGUING FOR!

This is very frustrating to me.

Please, reread at least some of the thread so I don't have to repeat myself again.

How about striving for world peace, and a better co-operation amongst nations, through exchange of ideas, and respect?

The US is involved in too many covert operations and until they end that practice, they will continue to have the Osamas and the Saddams :cry:

BTW don't hold your breath.

:shock:

THAT'S WHAT I'M ARGUING FOR!

This is very frustrating to me.

Please, reread at least some of the thread so I don't have to repeat myself again.
IF and only IF a nation such as the US puts away all the toys ($400 Billion per year), and starts brokering real peace (starting in the Middle East), then the world can be a better place. It will be a longggggggggg painful process but it could succeed.

Building up instead of tearing down is most necessary. Perhaps it is too late because there is so much hate and intolerance in the world today!! :cry:

How about striving for world peace, and a better co-operation amongst nations, through exchange of ideas, and respect?

The US is involved in too many covert operations and until they end that practice, they will continue to have the Osamas and the Saddams :cry:

BTW don't hold your breath.

:shock:

THAT'S WHAT I'M ARGUING FOR!

This is very frustrating to me.

Please, reread at least some of the thread so I don't have to repeat myself again.
IF and only IF a nation such as the US puts away all the toys ($400 Billion per year), and starts brokering real peace (starting in the Middle East), then the world can be a better place. It will be a longggggggggg painful process but it could succeed.

Building up instead of tearing down is most necessary. Perhaps it is too late because there is so much hate and intolerance in the world today!! :cry:

Generally, long and painful processes do not work in democracy's where people demand results immdediatly.

Ah, but those 46 are just the beginning. The unrests, with El Sadr, have only started about a week ago. I'd say it's a pretty good start. :D
And I'm not rolling over. Whatever gave you that idea?

Not to go off on a tangent, but that's exactly the problem, some people are willing to fight to the bitter end to make a point in an online forum, but in real and important things they declare failiure at the first sign of casualties, that's why I fear for the soul of the western world.

It's weak Mallberta.. it's weak.. you keep saying "moral" grounds.. basic human rights.. so then would you also agree that the United States lives in a glass house and throws stones? They do have capital punishment which is a breach of human rights if you want to get all literal here.

I'd say that the morally superior position of the United States to that of the late Hussien regime is pretty concrete. But as a moral relativist it's not like you can judge anyone anyway (it appears that you're a moral relativist anyway, you claim that morality is relative from region to region, this of course means that you can never judge anyone, including America because no ethical basis exists).

I'd say that the morally superior position of the United States to that of the late Hussien regime is pretty concrete. But as a moral relativist it's not like you can judge anyone anyway (it appears that you're a moral relativist anyway, you claim that morality is relative from region to region, this of course means that you can never judge anyone, including America because no ethical basis exists).

I don't think that's necessarily true. First, not believe in an objective moral code doesn't necessarily make someone a moral relativist in the way you're using the term. I don't believe in a universal objective moral code, if only because it's never been shown, logically or empirically, to be even possible, much less real.

Without asserting the moral superiority of the west, which I think is a dumb thing to assert because again, there's no way you can actually 'measure' the values of different cultures at this point. In order to be meaningful, such a judgement would need fair units of accounting and a standard, neutral system of analysis. We currently do not have the necessary moral equipment to judge the worth of different cultures.

However, that does not mean we cannot judge against regimes like Saddam's- it doesn't matter what reasonable moral code you suscribed to, Saddam was intolerable whether you're a fundementalist Islamic, a utilitarian or an objectivist. An overlapping moral consensus would clearly show that his regime is not justified.

I'd say that the morally superior position of the United States to that of the late Hussien regime is pretty concrete. But as a moral relativist it's not like you can judge anyone anyway (it appears that you're a moral relativist anyway, you claim that morality is relative from region to region, this of course means that you can never judge anyone, including America because no ethical basis exists).

I don't think that's necessarily true. First, not believe in an objective moral code doesn't necessarily make someone a moral relativist in the way you're using the term. I don't believe in a universal objective moral code, if only because it's never been shown, logically or empirically, to be even possible, much less real.

Without asserting the moral superiority of the west, which I think is a dumb thing to assert because again, there's no way you can actually 'measure' the values of different cultures at this point. In order to be meaningful, such a judgement would need fair units of accounting and a standard, neutral system of analysis. We currently do not have the necessary moral equipment to judge the worth of different cultures.

However, that does not mean we cannot judge against regimes like Saddam's- it doesn't matter what reasonable moral code you suscribed to, Saddam was intolerable whether you're a fundementalist Islamic, a utilitarian or an objectivist. An overlapping moral consensus would clearly show that his regime is not justified.

First off, I will never state that the west is, by nature, morally superior to the rest of the world, I agree with you there. As to the first section of your post, a solipsist would argue, quite logically, that nothing can be empirically proven to be true. Another agrument against emprircism is that the future is in no way obligated to follow the past.

But that's a can of worms I won't open. Really though, an overlapping moral consensus is nice, practical, and ussually works to determine degree of morality, but is majority opinion really required to judge ethical behavior? I would take an evolutionary view and suggest that inductive logic leads one to believe that, at the most basic level, moral actions are those that benefit society and our species as a whole, all moral actions are in some way or another based upon this premise, therefore consensus is coincidental, convinient, but not necessary.

But that's a can of worms I won't open. Really though, an overlapping moral consensus is nice, practical, and ussually works to determine degree of morality, but is majority opinion really required to judge ethical behavior? I would take an evolutionary view and suggest that inductive logic leads one to believe that, at the most basic level, moral actions are those that benefit society and our species as a whole, all moral actions are in some way or another based upon this premise, therefore consensus is coincidental, convinient, but not necessary.

Well that kind of begs the question as to what exactly benefits society, which is effectively what all moral arguments are about- christians believe banning homosexuality benefits societies, Islamics believe abolishment of western culture benefits society, and so on. It's difficult to find a single unit of accounting we can all agree upon. I mean, lets be honest, no moral system would present the maxim that moral actions are to the detriment of society and our species as a whole, so it's really kind of a specious argument. THis kind of shows why moral consensus is important; accepting one conception of 'the good' and expecting others to conform to this conception seems arbitrary at best.

[quote=Simkaria]
why I fear for the soul of the western world.

care to explain this one? I think we lost it (if we ever had one) long ago. Too much of our riches are built on human suffering to consider our soul to be "moral"

care to explain this one? I think we lost it (if we ever had one) long ago. Too much of our riches are built on human suffering to consider our soul to be "moral"

I was talking about the total lack of courage in much of the western world today. But I'd be happy to talk about misconceptions about wealth in general.

Many seem to be under the mistaken impression that in order for one person to gain wealth another must lose it, but this is simply not true. In a capitalist transaction both people give up something in exchange for something that they want more. Even in one sided transactions in which a rich nation buys products made in sweat shops the people in the sweat shops are still better off than if no one bought their products, because then they'd be dead. Such transactions may not be as fair as they should be toward both parties, but the poor nation is in no way harmed by either the people they buy from or the people that they sell to.