NationStates Jolt Archive

EOM

I think it's an apples to oranges kind of thing. Both were corrupt governments that encouraged terrorism, but the justification and execution of invasion was different.

Justified on both Iraq and Afghanistan. Two governments that promoted terror are gone.

Agreed.

The US only went after the Taliban after they wouldn't give up Al Queda members, even though they were the same group all along. The US were fully justified in going after Osama.

I think this is a question of removing a facilitator of terrorism(the Taliban) and an example of the reason for Islamic terrorism(Saddam).

I think this is a question of removing a facilitator of terrorism(the Taliban) and an example of the reason for Islamic terrorism(Saddam).

Meaning that by Saddam demonstrating that he could stand up to the United Nations, he was the modeling behavior of aggressing in the face of pacifism and showing that the civilized world was soft?

Saddam represented how the UN is utterly ineffectual in dealing with its own resolutions. If the UN had any clout, he would have been ousted a long time ago.

I think this is a question of removing a facilitator of terrorism(the Taliban) and an example of the reason for Islamic terrorism(Saddam).

Meaning that by Saddam demonstrating that he could stand up to the United Nations, he was the modeling behavior of standing up to pacifism and showing that the civilized world was soft?No, that the Saddam lead Ba'ahist regime in Iraq was an example of the cause of all extremism. A large group of people(Arab Muslims) who have no political or ,civil for that matter, rights resorting to the only behavior that makes thier voices heard. Those who can vote to change to policies of thier nations ,or region, rarely kill themselves and others to persue political goals. The only way to curb Islamic terrorism, in the long run, is to free the people of the Middle East.

Saddam represented how the UN is utterly ineffectual in dealing with its own resolutions. If the UN had any clout, he would have been ousted a long time ago.

The UN doesn't have any clout because large nations largely ignore its resolutions. The US ignored several UN related issues for years and then complains when it doesn't do something the US wants.

One important options was not offered in that pole:

"The coalition was less justified to topple the Iraqi dictator than it was in removing the Taliban"
But it was still justified, however the justification for removing the Taliban in Afghanistan was stronger since they were DIRECTLY linked to Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaida. Even the French and Germans agreed to that "regime-change".

No, that the Saddam lead Ba'ahist regime in Iraq was an example of the cause of all extremism. A large group of people(Arab Muslims) who have no political or ,civil for that matter, rights resorting to the only behavior that makes thier voices heard. Those who can vote to change to policies of thier nations ,or region, rarely kill themselves and others to persue political goals. The only way to curb Islamic terrorism, in the long run, is to free the people of the Middle East.

Ok. So are you or were you in favor of intervention given the circumstances? If you had to give a time frame for Iraq to emerge as freedom oriented society with civil and political rights, how long would ypu say it will take? In your opinion, will property right also be a necessity?

No, that the Saddam lead Ba'ahist regime in Iraq was an example of the cause of all extremism. A large group of people(Arab Muslims) who have no political or ,civil for that matter, rights resorting to the only behavior that makes thier voices heard. Those who can vote to change to policies of thier nations ,or region, rarely kill themselves and others to persue political goals. The only way to curb Islamic terrorism, in the long run, is to free the people of the Middle East.

Ok. So are you or were you in favor of intervention given the circumstances? If you had to give a time frame for Iraq to emerge as freedom oriented society with civil and political rights, how long would ypu say it will take? In your opinion, will property right also be a necessity?Yes, I was in favor of the war.I think it will take quite some time(5-10 years) to bring Iraq to a democratic, free nation, and if freedom and political rights spread to the rest of the Middle East, it will be well worth the sacrifice. If not, I think that further efforts are needed. Property rights are central to freedom, in my view. Ones own land, that one has control and ownership of, is the highest expression of freedom.

Saddam represented how the UN is utterly ineffectual in dealing with its own resolutions. If the UN had any clout, he would have been ousted a long time ago.

The UN doesn't have any clout because large nations largely ignore its resolutions. The US ignored several UN related issues for years and then complains when it doesn't do something the US wants.

Were any of those UN related issues security council resolutions? If so, tell me which ones.

I'm also of the opinion that the UN's shelf-life is long past due. It's now an organization that is corrupt with selfserving bureaucrats - a large portion of which despise capitalism but who will capitalize on any fraud related scheme that manages to line their own pockets.

Yes, I was in favor of the war.I think it will take quite some time(5-10 years) to bring Iraq to a democratic, free nation, and if freedom and political rights spread to the rest of the Middle East, it will be well worth the sacrifice. If not, I think that further efforts are needed. Property rights are central to freedom, in my view. Ones own land, that one has control and ownership of, is the highest expression of freedom.

I concur.

Speaking of the United Nations, here's another off topic question: which will happen first 1) another world bodied organization will take the place of the United Nations or 2) France - the country with a dying culture and with rapidly decaying influence - will be forced to lose its permenent seat in the Security Council?

Speaking of the United Nations, here's another off topic question: which will happen first 1) another world bodied organization will take the place of the United Nations or 2) France - the country with a dying culture and with rapidly decaying influence - will be forced to lose its permenent seat in the Security Council?Say what you will of France, but the French are an economic, military and political power, in thier region, France's day hasn't passed, yet.

Speaking of the United Nations, here's another off topic question: which will happen first 1) another world bodied organization will take the place of the United Nations or 2) France - the country with a dying culture and with rapidly decaying influence - will be forced to lose its permenent seat in the Security Council?

Hmmm... Although I don't think #1 will happen ala League of Nations ==> UN, I think what we might end up seeing will be more of a change in emphasis away from the UN. I think the growing power of the EU, inter-state terror organizations, and other forms of regionalism might be indications that future conflicts and discourses will be more regional/cultural/civilizational. (I've seen all three terms used to describe what's essentially the same thing.)

Speaking of the permanent seat thing, though, would that have to be done through an ammendment of the UN charter by the GA, or is there another mechanism?

One important options was not offered in that pole:

"The coalition was less justified to topple the Iraqi dictator than it was in removing the Taliban"
But it was still justified, however the justification for removing the Taliban in Afghanistan was stronger since they were DIRECTLY linked to Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaida. Even the French and Germans agreed to that "regime-change".Agreed, and the Taliban was a fundamentalist religious government and I hate religious fundalmentalists (of all denominations). Both Governments were repulsive to me, the Taliban with it fundie oppression of women, the arts and free thought, and Saddam with his ruthless grasp on power and exploitation and oppression of virtually anyone who looked at him sideways. But I find other dictators and governments throughout the world repulsive and the question here is justification. I think Kybernetia's option is the correct assesment.

@Stableness

"2) France - the country with a dying culture and with rapidly decaying influence - will be forced to lose its permenent seat in the Security Council?"
I can understand your anti-french sentiment. But France isn´t a dying culture nor nation. France has one of the highest birth rates in Europe: 1,89 children per woman. More than Britain with 1,64 per woman.

However you raise an important question: why does the UK and France have veto power although the time of their colonial empires has passed a long time ago? There is no justification for that, except that those two nations are doing anything to keep that veto right in order to pretend that they are still great world powers, which they are not any more.
Thats also why the British wants to keep the UN, in contrast to many politicians in the US who see it as an obstacle and as a bad instituition.
The present composition of the security council represents the world of 1945 with the five big winners of WWII, but not the world of 2004. After all: there were 50 UN members in 1945 and most of the countries of today were still colonies. Today: there are almost 200 countries. But the composition of the SC hasn´t changed. That chose that UN has failed completly in reforming itself.

Speaking of the permanent seat thing, though, would that have to be done through an ammendment of the UN charter by the GA, or is there another mechanism?

I have no idea about the interworkings of that cesspool. It is a good question that you ask. The Security Council has always been where the bulk of the power rests but again I don't uderstand the hierarchy of that body much less the way reforms are made within it.

@Stableness

"2) France - the country with a dying culture and with rapidly decaying influence - will be forced to lose its permenent seat in the Security Council?"
I can understand your anti-french sentiment. But France isn´t a dying culture nor nation. France has one of the highest birth rates in Europe: 1,89 children per woman. More than Britain with 1,64 per woman.

However you raise an important question: why does the UK and France have veto power although the time of their colonial empires has passed a long time ago? There is no justification for that, except that those two nations are doing anything to keep that veto right in order to pretend that they are still great world powers, which they are not any more.
Thats also why the British wants to keep the UN, in contrast to many politicians in the US who see it as an obstacle and as a bad instituition.
The present composition of the security council represents the world of 1945 with the five big winners of WWII, but not the world of 2004. After all: there were 50 UN members in 1945 and most of the countries of today were still colonies. Today: there are almost 200 countries. But the composition of the SC hasn´t changed. That chose that UN has failed completly in reforming itself.

I honestly thout that France's birth rates were much lower than that 1.86 number. I also have read that they are attracting a large amount muslim immigration. I only see this a a prelude to hostilities between them and the pedominate Catholic population. It would be nice to think that the two would live peacfully but regretably it's usually a faith's perverted leadership that spurs religious tensions. France does not help itself with its "progressive" policies regarding labor and entitlement. Many of Frances policies create disincentives for economic growth.

I am not anti-French, however, I do not see them as a growing society and they do seem to be losing influence.

@Stableness,


"I have no idea about the interworkings of that cesspool. It is a good question that you ask. The Security Council has always been where the bulk of the power rests but again I don't uderstand the hierarchy of that body much less the way reforms are made within it."
Its very simple: There were no reforms.
The SC was formed by the five winners of WWII (US, USSR(today Russia), UK, France and China (that time Chiang Kai-shek, since 1971 the People´s Republic China). Those five powers reserved themselves the veto right (meaning the right to block all resolutions one of them doesn´t like).

The SC has five permanent members (the nations mentioned above) with veto right and 10 non-permanent members elected for 2 years by the general assembly. Every year half of them (5) are elected.
There is an agreement that the ten should come from all world region:
2 from western Europe (till 2005 Germany and Spain)
1 from East Europe (till 2005 Romania)
2 from America (till 2005 Chili, till 2006 Brazil)
3 from Africa (till 2005 Angola, till 2006 Benin and Algeria)
2 from Asia and Oceania (till 2005 Pakistan, till 2006 the Phillipines)

Decision require 9 of 15 votes. Veto powers can veto any resolution they like. That is their right according to the UN rules. There is no "unreasonable" veto, since it lays completly in the disgreacion of any permanent member whether it wants to use the veto or not.

@Stableness,

"It would be nice to think that the two would live peacfully but regretably it's usually a faith's perverted leadership that spurs religious tensions. France does not help itself with its "progressive" policies regarding labor and entitlement. Many of Frances policies create disincentives for economic growth."
I partly agree with you. However: the reason for the huge arab minority lays in the colonial history of France. Go to the UK. You find many pakistani over there. There are also extremists under them.
Today France has tighten its immigration laws. It has a conservative government now which has implemented some reforms.
The socialist era in France is over, just like in the rest of continental Europe.
By the way: almost 20% of the French have voted the extreme right (Le Pens Front National) which is anti-muslim and anti-immigration.
That actually helps the government to push for tighter immigration policies. The moderate conservatives can point out to their critics and the political left that otherwise the Front National could become stronger.

I don't really want to start debating France and 'the end of socialism' in Europe as it's somewhat off-topic. Suffice to say I disagree with the interpretations put forward by Stableness and Kybernetia.

With regards to Afghanistan: I'm glad to see the Taliban removed from power. Amnesty International and others were highlighting their appalling abuses, particularly against women, for many years. Sadly, no one in a position to assist the Afghan peoples - through diplomacy or any other means - seemed remotely inclined to do anything until the link with al-Qaeda was established. Nevertheless, perhaps the invasion was justified, irrespective of the reasons behind it... actually, the Taliban are still a powerful force, though underground. The factions brought to prominence by the invasion are a pretty frightening bunch of wannabe dictators and butchers. The government is on the verge of collapse. the heroin trade is still healthy. However, despite all this, conditions have undoubtedly improved and there's the possibility of better times ahead.

Time will tell.

With regards to Iraq: We all know that Saddam was an appalling tyrant, in his own way nearly as bad as the Taliban. However, the reasons given for going to war are turning out to be based on fallacies and untruths. Putting that aside, has the invasion helped the Iraqis? I'd say that, on balance, it has. Again, there's the potential for a brighter future. The actions of the moderate Shi'ites and the much-maligned Sunnis are encouraging, the Jurds have a greater voice than before and the constitution is a pretty decent platform for a stable Iraq. That said, the country is still incredibly vulnerable. I'd say the US and their allies have arrived at this state of affairs more through luck than judgement.

Even more so than with Afghanistan, the actions of the US and co have been justified by reasoning that simply hasn't been borne out. The enforced privatisation of state assets fits neatly with the neo-lib capitalist doctrine and the rapacious corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel. However, it is an unproven doctrine. The likes of the UK and others have not undertaken such stringent liberalisation programmes; why on earth should they be involved with enforcing them on the Iraqis (and others all around the world through the IMF)? This should have been left to the Iraqis to determine for themselves. If they choose the wrong option then so be it. At least it was their choice to begin with.

In conclusion, I hope that the invasions turn out to have been worthwhile and that these two wounded countries have a peaceful future in front of them. However, the nations that 'liberated' them do not emerge with a great deal of credit in my eyes. "The ends justify the means"... I'm not so sure.

Enough of my rambling, I have work to do, as Stableness is well aware of!

I don't really want to start debating France and 'the end of socialism' in Europe as it's somewhat off-topic. Suffice to say I disagree with the interpretations put forward by Stableness and Kybernetia.

With regards to Afghanistan: I'm glad to see the Taliban removed from power. Amnesty International and others were highlighting their appalling abuses, particularly against women, for many years. Sadly, no one in a position to assist the Afghan peoples - through diplomacy or any other means - seemed remotely inclined to do anything until the link with al-Qaeda was established. Nevertheless, perhaps the invasion was justified, irrespective of the reasons behind it... actually, the Taliban are still a powerful force, though underground. The factions brought to prominence by the invasion are a pretty frightening bunch of wannabe dictators and butchers. The government is on the verge of collapse. the heroin trade is still healthy. However, despite all this, conditions have undoubtedly improved and there's the possibility of better times ahead.

Time will tell.

With regards to Iraq: We all know that Saddam was an appalling tyrant, in his own way nearly as bad as the Taliban. However, the reasons given for going to war are turning out to be based on fallacies and untruths. Putting that aside, has the invasion helped the Iraqis? I'd say that, on balance, it has. Again, there's the potential for a brighter future. The actions of the moderate Shi'ites and the much-maligned Sunnis are encouraging, the Jurds have a greater voice than before and the constitution is a pretty decent platform for a stable Iraq. That said, the country is still incredibly vulnerable. I'd say the US and their allies have arrived at this state of affairs more through luck than judgement.

Even more so than with Afghanistan, the actions of the US and co have been justified by reasoning that simply hasn't been borne out. The enforced privatisation of state assets fits neatly with the neo-lib capitalist doctrine and the rapacious corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel. However, it is an unproven doctrine. The likes of the UK and others have not undertaken such stringent liberalisation programmes; why on earth should they be involved with enforcing them on the Iraqis (and others all around the world through the IMF)? This should have been left to the Iraqis to determine for themselves. If they choose the wrong option then so be it. At least it was their choice to begin with.

In conclusion, I hope that the invasions turn out to have been worthwhile and that these two wounded countries have a peaceful future in front of them. However, the nations that 'liberated' them do not emerge with a great deal of credit in my eyes. "The ends justify the means"... I'm not so sure.

Enough of my rambling, I have work to do, as Stableness is well aware of!
I don't believe I've ever read a more balanced opinion of yours than the one you've given here...so you actually can be rational at times. I'm impressed and keep up the good work. Speaking of work... :P

You do realise that this is the second time you've 'complimented' me in this manner? Apparently I'm only ever rational when I express an opinion that you vaguely agree with... :wink:

...France - the country with a dying culture ...

Care to explain to a poor fool like me in what manner does France have a dying culture?

...France - the country with a dying culture ...

Care to explain to a poor fool like me in what manner does France have a dying culture?

Sign me up for an explanation too. This should be interesting.

DP

TP

QdP

QtP

Well, that makes six. Just four more and I would have topped my previous record.

The US is dying. It has no more credibility on the internationnal level. Its soft power is gone and the US culture holds no prestige anymore. No country trust the US policies and the US appears as the least reasonable member of the security council. The US should loose its seat immediately.
With the oil exhausting itself slowly and the dollar loosing ground every day, the US should become a third world country soon.

Actually, it is true that the dollar is losing worth. Europe is going way up, I believe

...France - the country with a dying culture ...

Care to explain to a poor fool like me in what manner does France have a dying culture?

Start with these and I'll dig up some more when I get the time to search.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/11/08/2003075088

http://www.iht.com/articles/112118.html

...France - the country with a dying culture ...

Care to explain to a poor fool like me in what manner does France have a dying culture?

Start with these and I'll dig up some more when I get the time to search.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/11/08/2003075088

http://www.iht.com/articles/112118.html

Yes, thank you, I am actually capable of doing a google search of the form "+France +Decline" myself, but could you actually try and answer the question in your own words: in what manner does France have a dying culture, instead of just posting links cocnerning a lessening of French influence on the geopolitical stage?