>>>>>You just go on thinking that total American safety is an achievable goal. It's not. It never is.<<<<<
So we shouldn't try?
>>>>>The irony of it is, of course, that in the process of attempting to achieve this safety, you wind up making more enemies, which means all new people to kill.<<<<<
We only kill them when they decide they're going to try and kill us.
>>>>>It's a slippery slope that ends in imperial overextension, paranoia, and lots and lots of dead bodies--both at home and abroad.<<<<<
As long as none of them are American.
>>>>>And it's all for the illusion of safety, not the real thing.<<<<<
I feel pretty safe from all the dead Talibaners in Afghanistan.
>>>>>You should demand better solutions than this from your government.<<<<<
This solution unfolding in Iraq suits me just fine.
That, my man, is a complex question. Here's the short answer:
It's about hookers and slutty women.
The longer answer:
In the nineteenth-century in England (and America) any woman who was engaged in sexual activity outside of wedlock was deemed a "fallen woman" (a term that initially described mostly middle-class women who had gotten knocked up). This term eventually came to describe all sorts of women who were less than respectable (including prostitutes), as well as some who were (married pregnant women). One of the problems for scholars of 19th-century literature is that for about 20 years we've been working almost solely off of literary accounts of these fallen women. And even worse, we've been looking almost exclusively at novels. And even worse, most of those novels are written by men who had little or no experience with the fallen women they were describing (Dickens is the exception here). Recently, there's been some attention to the fallen woman in literature written by women, which is good, but most of it looks at novels. I'm interested in looking at representations of the fallen woman in poetry (and especially dramatic monologues) by women--and more importantly, by women who were involved, first-hand, in work among these women. I look and loads and loads of first-hand accounts of such work and descriptions of these women, and take a close look at the ways that these women poets are very actively, and very consciously, attempting to combat oversimplified notions of the fallen woman that they'd inherited from the previous century.
In this case the "court system" is the UN. Your analogy is ridiculous because the UN is not a "court system" for the world.
I am amazed at your foolish logic that something is "just" simply because it has a tag of approval. I am sure you would scoff at the idea of every legalized federal action was "just".
Keep ignoring the people. Your pathetic and failed international organizations are apparently more important to you than the lives of millions of people.
Yes, but if we don't go along with an organization like the UN what's the point in having it? If you say "no point " then you have proved you don't go along with the idea of a peaceful, cooperative world.
>>>>>You just go on thinking that total American safety is an achievable goal. It's not. It never is.<<<<<
So we shouldn't try?
Of course we should try. But the real question is whether or not we're trying in such a way that it will put us in even more danger. My point is that the American public is being fed the illusion of safety...it's all smoke and mirrors...the department of homeland defense that does...what? Scares us all with terror alerts? Adds a new layer of beurocracy to an already overburdened system? Ridge is there to look like the admin is doing something to make us safer. Which makes us feel safer. And we're not.
Quote:
>>>>>The irony of it is, of course, that in the process of attempting to achieve this safety, you wind up making more enemies, which means all new people to kill.<<<<<
We only kill them when they decide they're going to try and kill us.
Now we're into a pretty scary space, considering that the current conflict has made clear that it's not when they decide they're going to try and kill us; it's when they seem to appear to maybe perhaps down the road begin thinking about possibly killing us.
Quote:
>>>>>It's a slippery slope that ends in imperial overextension, paranoia, and lots and lots of dead bodies--both at home and abroad.<<<<<
As long as none of them are American.
Some of them will be. They always are. Some of them already are.
Quote:
>>>>>And it's all for the illusion of safety, not the real thing.<<<<<
I feel pretty safe from all the dead Talibaners in Afghanistan.
And now you're not safe from all the people who are moving in to take their places.
Quote:
>>>>>You should demand better solutions than this from your government.<<<<<
This solution unfolding in Iraq suits me just fine.
And that's where we differ. I read this conflict as a war of aggression created by a failure of imagination on the part of this administration. There is always a better way, and I will never, ever support a war of aggression without some damned convincing evidence that if we don't act now, today, at this moment, Americans will die. And even then, I'd be hard pressed to accept it. I want to know that every conceivable option has been exhausted before I support sending EVEN ONE American into harm's way, and I haven't been satisfied with anything I've been told, nor have I been satisfied with the social, legal, and geopolitical costs of this "war" (I hesitate to call it that; it's a one-sided slaughter of a hopelessly inadequate military by another).
Well what is your version of "just", religious law? Moral relativism?
Moral relativism to an extent. Mostly common sense.
Quote:
Laws define 'justice', even if they're not perfect. That's why the ability to change the U.S. Constitution is built into the Constitution itself. Because what was considered 'just' would change.
Exactly.
Quote:
In this analogy the "court system" is the UN. An analogy does not have to have a direct correlation to "the world". It most likely does NOT have a direct correlation to "the world".
And that's why analogies suck for explaining something obscure and indefinite.
Quote:
The way in which the U.N. was handling Iraq was certainly more "just" than how the U.S. was. The thing someone as scared as you are might not realize is that sometimes what's "just" will end up with a scenario that's not as "good" as unjust means. The most "just" isn't defined by the ends, it's defined by the means.
I don't care about what the UN's legal machine says is just. And you'll even notice, there's no movement to declare the war unjust. I suppose it is just after all.
Quote:
You keep ignoring the law because you're too scared to realize what fascism really is.
Fascism?
This is fascism now?
Quote:
You keep ignoring law because you're living a comfortable, isolated life.
What law? Ambiguous "international law" that is rarely enforced?
I know it's there, I don't ignore it, I dismiss it when it is inconvenient.
Quote:
You keep ignoring law because it's biased in your favor and you have very little reason to believe it's ever going to bite you on the arse which means you have a strong and selfish reason to keep the status quo.
Because law is justified in and of itself, right? I'm sure there are no situations where you would say it is every proper to break the law.
Not the US.
The US is a fascist state now.
And the palooka keeps taking the hits and wobbling back for more.
---
pfflam:
Quote:
we are 'just' in a transcendant sense . . .meaning, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations and we know this because we are just, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations we don't need the discourse between nations to wiegh and balance the scales of justice because we are right, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations.
It's must more simple than that.
This war is "just" because it is going to (1) remove Hussein, (2) remove sanctions, (3) improve the lives of the Iraqi people.
No need for circular logic about "we are right because we are right". It's very simple and clear.
And beyond that we are the most humane and giving superpower in the history of mankind. I guess you can ignore that if you like but it's true.
Quote:
which, without the International Law mediated by International discourse is very similar to justice in fascist cultures
Like "international community", "international law" is little more than an oxymoron to get people's blood pumping.
It does a lot of good, it seems, when you watch how Iraq's soldiers fight and how the bleeders who would scream about the US's fascism completely ignore it. But we aren't fighting "fair" now are we?
I suppose we should ignore the plight of the millions of people dying because of the UN's incompetence because it is more inkeeping with selectively enforced and politically charged international laws? Is that what you're saying?
I thought that fascism was a form of government that placed the collective over the individual.
fas·cism Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
fascism
n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
Moral relativism to an extent. Mostly common sense.
So you'll criticize more relativism when a 'liberal' uses it, but when you or NoahJ uses it, it's OK?
And common sense is certainly relative as well. You'll just have to trust me when I say 'common sense' is different in different parts of the world. If you ever leave your part of the world, you might figure that out for yourself.
People always forget that in a Fascist state it is the people who are complicit. They like -- demand -- their government to pursue terrible policies.
Fascism requires faith. Faith demands the believer should believe ludicrous things ... for example, the Catholic trans-substantiation sees people eating the very body of Christ at mass. Not metaphoric body, not symbolic body but the real thing. No ludicrous myth, no faith, no Fascism.
When you see a nation believing a ludicrous myth and defining its nationhood through it, be scared; for example, "The Aryan race is the master race and the Jews are subhuman."
When that nation punishes its own and others for disagreeing, be very scared.
When a nation makes these myths vital to its meaning and exports them violently, shit yourself.
For example, "Violent action discourages terrorists. This war is making the world safer. The US system will sort the area out."
Believing this takes a leap of faith equal in size to Holocaust denial and only marginally less repugnant.
The evidence piles up undeniably and yet to say you disagree makes you un-American, un-patriotic. Or worse. French.
The US is killing people in the pursuit of a demonstrably ludicrous myth. Fascism? Heading for it for certain.
Like "international community", "international law" is little more than an oxymoron to get people's blood pumping.
It does a lot of good, it seems, when you watch how Iraq's soldiers fight and how the bleeders who would scream about the US's fascism completely ignore it. But we aren't fighting "fair" now are we?
I suppose we should ignore the plight of the millions of people dying because of the UN's incompetence because it is more inkeeping with selectively enforced and politically charged international laws? Is that what you're saying?
No, I am not saying that the US is fascist . . .but I am saying that the belief that one's own international stance is absolute and universaly correc without its being held up to the mediation of critical international discourse is similar to the fascist belief in one's own correctness resulting from one's might.
I am not completely against this war but am against the lack of grace in its introduction . . . it would have been best if diplomacy had wrangled much more support from allies that matter as far as world support . . . Iran/Iraqi exile allies, Iraqi exile forces, UN.
When you discount the only international channel for establishing 'common ground' of moral and legal legitimacy you are in effect saying that you understand the Truth and don't need to accept different perspectives . . . in other words that's arrogant and, a staple of anti-american critique is exactly that, that Americans thnk they know what is good for the world
by denying the need for International discourse we are saying that we think we are the bearers of Truth, of divine right .. . arrogant?!?!?
So you'll criticize more relativism when a 'liberal' uses it, but when you or NoahJ uses it, it's OK?
What in blue **** are you talking about?
You keep your spat with NoahJ between you and NoahJ.
(Taking for granted that you're the "liberal" there.)
Quote:
And common sense is certainly relative as well. You'll just have to trust me when I say 'common sense' is different in different parts of the world. If you ever leave your part of the world, you might figure that out for yourself.
I like mine, it serves me well.
I'll go ahead and let you keep yours.
My common sense tells me that millions of lives are more important than the workings of a back-biting and impotent international "peace" force. Yours perhaps, tells you something different.
--
Harald:
Quote:
For example, "Violent action discourages terrorists. This war is making the world safer. The US system will sort the area out."
Believing this takes a leap of faith equal in size to Holocaust denial and only marginally less repugnant.
The evidence piles up undeniably and yet to say you disagree makes you un-American, un-patriotic. Or worse. French.
Our (the US) anti-terrorism policy has killed 6 million people?
Your melodramatics are equal in size to Nathan Lane's in The Birdcage and certainly more repugnant.
What "evidence" do you speak of, sexy? The ~700-1000 civilian casualties in the Iraq war so far?
---
pfflam:
Quote:
No, I am not saying that the US is fascist . . .but I am saying that the belief that one's own international stance is absolute and universaly correc without its being held up to the mediation of critical international discourse is similar to the fascist belief in one's own correctness resulting from one's might.
Well you think critically then you make a decision. And we did allow our international stance to be held up to the mediate of critical international discourse. We dicked around with the UN for 12 years over Iraq and then finally gave them 5 *more* months to fix the problem.
Should we only do what the UN says we should?
Quote:
I am not completely against this war but am against the lack of grace in its introduction . . . it would have been best if diplomacy had wrangled much more support from allies that matter as far as world support . . . Iran/Iraqi exile allies, Iraqi exile forces, UN.
You are against the lack of grace in its introduction... stunning.
Quote:
When you discount the only international channel for establishing 'common ground' of moral and legal legitimacy you are in effect saying that you understand the Truth and don't need to accept different perspectives . . . in other words that's arrogant and, a staple of anti-american critique is exactly that, that Americans thnk they know what is good for the world
The UNSC is a total and complete failure. I do not think we should allow the UNSC to determine our foreign policy. It has failed the people it was designed to help for over 50 years.
I don't care if it is seen as arrogant, those who stand to benefit from this arrogance will certainly be better off than if we continue to subject our will to European diplomats.
Keep ignoring how the UN gets nothing done. After all, you're not the one starving under sanction.
Quote:
by denying the need for International discourse we are saying that we think we are the bearers of Truth, of divine right .. . arrogant?!?!?
How are we denying INTERNATIONAL DISCOURSE!? HOW? Did we not tie this issue up in the "international community" for over a decade?
Bush brought the issue to the UN, do you not remember that? He gave the UN plenty of time to get moving. The US gave the UN plenty of time go get moving.
But it doesn't hurt you when the UN's reticence costs millions of lives, you live in the wonderful West.
Saddam is just killing his own people, it's none of our business really.
Our (the US) anti-terrorism policy has killed 6 million people?
No. What are you talking about? Umm ... argue with what I *said* if you please Mr. Journalist. I equate Holocaust denial with the imagination required to think US policy will work. To think that the US anti-terrorism process is going to reduce terror is perverse. You have to really, really, REALLY want to believe that.
Evidence?! Damn, thanks for proving my point.
How much do you want!?
Hosni Mubarak pointing out the US is creating "100 Bin Ladens" ... the first ever suicide attacks in Iraq (by people you're bringing "liberation" too) ... one million walking in Damascus, chanting about jihad ... busloads of Iraqis heading hame to fight ... On Thursday, Syria's Grand mufti, Sheikh Ahmad Kaftaro called on Muslims to engage in a jihad against foreign troops in Iraq ...
... PALESTINE.
Please argue how violent response has helped there. Please give me one example of terror being defeated with guns anywhere in the world. Please explain how the world will now have less terror.
How are we denying INTERNATIONAL DISCOURSE!? HOW? Did we not tie this issue up in the "international community" for over a decade?
Bush brought the issue to the UN, do you not remember that? He gave the UN plenty of time to get moving. The US gave the UN plenty of time go get moving.
I disagree with this.
Before the inspectors went back in there had been no inspections for four years; this talk of 'a decade' isn't quite right. Then it took (what?) four months to go to war, with the US sending thousands of troops to the Middle East before the inspections were even over.
The US hurried this thing along. Dis the UN all you want, but the US weren't ever going to listen to it so it's not really fair to call it 'toothless'.
You keep saying that it was held up for 10 years, for 12 years . . . these are years when we didn't give a shiit . . .. we just didn't care.
about the "grace" (I knew that would get a rise) the point of grace in diplomacy is to be able to achieve real things without the blunt use of alienating force . . . which is exactly what we did through the manner in which we approached this war . . the consequences of our graceless attitude will be real and will last for many many years.
Quote:
Bush brought the issue to the UN, do you not remember that? He gave the UN plenty of time to get moving. The US gave the UN plenty of time go get moving.
But it doesn't hurt you when the UN's reticence costs millions of lives, you live in the wonderful West.
Saddam is just killing his own people, it's none of our business really.
Bush brought up his plan ( a masquerade for the real plan Pax Americana and then demanded that the UN do what we say . . . . this is not working with the UN or even understanding the nature of diplomacy . . .its pushy arrogance . . . if he had approached this properly we may actually have had enough force with enough variation of interests apparent behind it to have the Iraqis give up, as was hoped they would do.
oh, and now its up to millions of lives?!?!? next it will be 'the end of the world'
and by the way, the excuse for this war originally said nothing about Saddam and killing his own' that is just a new excuse for during the war . . . . if we cared so much about that we would not have supported SH for so long when we did . . . its just a convenient perspective now cuase it makes us look good
The UNSC is a total and complete failure. I do not think we should allow the UNSC to determine our foreign policy. It has failed the people it was designed to help for over 50 years.
You keep your spat with NoahJ between you and NoahJ.
(Taking for granted that you're the "liberal" there.)
I like mine, it serves me well.
I'll go ahead and let you keep yours.
My common sense tells me that millions of lives are more important than the workings of a back-biting and impotent international "peace" force. Yours perhaps, tells you something different.
--
Harald:
Our (the US) anti-terrorism policy has killed 6 million people?
Your melodramatics are equal in size to Nathan Lane's in The Birdcage and certainly more repugnant.
What "evidence" do you speak of, sexy? The ~700-1000 civilian casualties in the Iraq war so far?
---
pfflam:
Well you think critically then you make a decision. And we did allow our international stance to be held up to the mediate of critical international discourse. We dicked around with the UN for 12 years over Iraq and then finally gave them 5 *more* months to fix the problem.
Should we only do what the UN says we should?
You are against the lack of grace in its introduction... stunning.
The UNSC is a total and complete failure. I do not think we should allow the UNSC to determine our foreign policy. It has failed the people it was designed to help for over 50 years.
I don't care if it is seen as arrogant, those who stand to benefit from this arrogance will certainly be better off than if we continue to subject our will to European diplomats.
Keep ignoring how the UN gets nothing done. After all, you're not the one starving under sanction.
How are we denying INTERNATIONAL DISCOURSE!? HOW? Did we not tie this issue up in the "international community" for over a decade?
Bush brought the issue to the UN, do you not remember that? He gave the UN plenty of time to get moving. The US gave the UN plenty of time go get moving.
But it doesn't hurt you when the UN's reticence costs millions of lives, you live in the wonderful West.
Saddam is just killing his own people, it's none of our business really.
Yes, yes, yes, but Bush didn't provide proof of his allegations. Remember?
Just because you don't like their methods or decisions doesn't make them ineffective. And of course you ignore the other points that have been brought up a dozen times. There are many countries in which the leader is killing their own people. Why are we ( really ) focused on this one? Then you would of course bring up the old mantra of " he's a threat ". Well, why don't we attack Korea then? Now there's a real threat ( I'm not really advocting this it's just an example ) their missles can reach us ( there's proof and everything ). We'd have a real fight on our hands then. But they meet your criteria for this action.
There are other examples so what are you suggesting we do? Take on the entire world and remake it in an image that we like? That's fascism in my book.
This is why your logic just doesn't wash. I sense ether an insult or being ignored will be your answer.
Comments
So we shouldn't try?
>>>>>The irony of it is, of course, that in the process of attempting to achieve this safety, you wind up making more enemies, which means all new people to kill.<<<<<
We only kill them when they decide they're going to try and kill us.
>>>>>It's a slippery slope that ends in imperial overextension, paranoia, and lots and lots of dead bodies--both at home and abroad.<<<<<
As long as none of them are American.
>>>>>And it's all for the illusion of safety, not the real thing.<<<<<
I feel pretty safe from all the dead Talibaners in Afghanistan.
>>>>>You should demand better solutions than this from your government.<<<<<
This solution unfolding in Iraq suits me just fine.
>>>>>Cheers
Scott <<<<<
Cheers to you. What's your Dissertation about?
Aries 1B
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Colin Powell's speech to the UN. That was good enough for me.
Aries 1B
Yeah but, where's the proof?
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Cheers to you. What's your Dissertation about?
Aries 1B
That, my man, is a complex question.
It's about hookers and slutty women.
The longer answer:
In the nineteenth-century in England (and America) any woman who was engaged in sexual activity outside of wedlock was deemed a "fallen woman" (a term that initially described mostly middle-class women who had gotten knocked up). This term eventually came to describe all sorts of women who were less than respectable (including prostitutes), as well as some who were (married pregnant women). One of the problems for scholars of 19th-century literature is that for about 20 years we've been working almost solely off of literary accounts of these fallen women. And even worse, we've been looking almost exclusively at novels. And even worse, most of those novels are written by men who had little or no experience with the fallen women they were describing (Dickens is the exception here). Recently, there's been some attention to the fallen woman in literature written by women, which is good, but most of it looks at novels. I'm interested in looking at representations of the fallen woman in poetry (and especially dramatic monologues) by women--and more importantly, by women who were involved, first-hand, in work among these women. I look and loads and loads of first-hand accounts of such work and descriptions of these women, and take a close look at the ways that these women poets are very actively, and very consciously, attempting to combat oversimplified notions of the fallen woman that they'd inherited from the previous century.
But really, it's about hookers and slutty women.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
In this case the "court system" is the UN. Your analogy is ridiculous because the UN is not a "court system" for the world.
I am amazed at your foolish logic that something is "just" simply because it has a tag of approval. I am sure you would scoff at the idea of every legalized federal action was "just".
Keep ignoring the people. Your pathetic and failed international organizations are apparently more important to you than the lives of millions of people.
Yes, but if we don't go along with an organization like the UN what's the point in having it? If you say "no point " then you have proved you don't go along with the idea of a peaceful, cooperative world.
It's as simple as that.
>>>>>You just go on thinking that total American safety is an achievable goal. It's not. It never is.<<<<<
So we shouldn't try?
Of course we should try. But the real question is whether or not we're trying in such a way that it will put us in even more danger. My point is that the American public is being fed the illusion of safety...it's all smoke and mirrors...the department of homeland defense that does...what? Scares us all with terror alerts? Adds a new layer of beurocracy to an already overburdened system? Ridge is there to look like the admin is doing something to make us safer. Which makes us feel safer. And we're not.
>>>>>The irony of it is, of course, that in the process of attempting to achieve this safety, you wind up making more enemies, which means all new people to kill.<<<<<
We only kill them when they decide they're going to try and kill us.
Now we're into a pretty scary space, considering that the current conflict has made clear that it's not when they decide they're going to try and kill us; it's when they seem to appear to maybe perhaps down the road begin thinking about possibly killing us.
>>>>>It's a slippery slope that ends in imperial overextension, paranoia, and lots and lots of dead bodies--both at home and abroad.<<<<<
As long as none of them are American.
Some of them will be. They always are. Some of them already are.
>>>>>And it's all for the illusion of safety, not the real thing.<<<<<
I feel pretty safe from all the dead Talibaners in Afghanistan.
And now you're not safe from all the people who are moving in to take their places.
>>>>>You should demand better solutions than this from your government.<<<<<
This solution unfolding in Iraq suits me just fine.
And that's where we differ. I read this conflict as a war of aggression created by a failure of imagination on the part of this administration. There is always a better way, and I will never, ever support a war of aggression without some damned convincing evidence that if we don't act now, today, at this moment, Americans will die. And even then, I'd be hard pressed to accept it. I want to know that every conceivable option has been exhausted before I support sending EVEN ONE American into harm's way, and I haven't been satisfied with anything I've been told, nor have I been satisfied with the social, legal, and geopolitical costs of this "war" (I hesitate to call it that; it's a one-sided slaughter of a hopelessly inadequate military by another).
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by bunge
Well what is your version of "just", religious law? Moral relativism?
Moral relativism to an extent. Mostly common sense.
Laws define 'justice', even if they're not perfect. That's why the ability to change the U.S. Constitution is built into the Constitution itself. Because what was considered 'just' would change.
Exactly.
In this analogy the "court system" is the UN. An analogy does not have to have a direct correlation to "the world". It most likely does NOT have a direct correlation to "the world".
And that's why analogies suck for explaining something obscure and indefinite.
The way in which the U.N. was handling Iraq was certainly more "just" than how the U.S. was. The thing someone as scared as you are might not realize is that sometimes what's "just" will end up with a scenario that's not as "good" as unjust means. The most "just" isn't defined by the ends, it's defined by the means.
I don't care about what the UN's legal machine says is just. And you'll even notice, there's no movement to declare the war unjust. I suppose it is just after all.
You keep ignoring the law because you're too scared to realize what fascism really is.
Fascism?
This is fascism now?
You keep ignoring law because you're living a comfortable, isolated life.
What law? Ambiguous "international law" that is rarely enforced?
I know it's there, I don't ignore it, I dismiss it when it is inconvenient.
You keep ignoring law because it's biased in your favor and you have very little reason to believe it's ever going to bite you on the arse which means you have a strong and selfish reason to keep the status quo.
Because law is justified in and of itself, right? I'm sure there are no situations where you would say it is every proper to break the law.
Not the US.
The US is a fascist state now.
And the palooka keeps taking the hits and wobbling back for more.
---
pfflam:
we are 'just' in a transcendant sense . . .meaning, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations and we know this because we are just, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations we don't need the discourse between nations to wiegh and balance the scales of justice because we are right, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations.
It's must more simple than that.
This war is "just" because it is going to (1) remove Hussein, (2) remove sanctions, (3) improve the lives of the Iraqi people.
No need for circular logic about "we are right because we are right". It's very simple and clear.
And beyond that we are the most humane and giving superpower in the history of mankind. I guess you can ignore that if you like but it's true.
which, without the International Law mediated by International discourse is very similar to justice in fascist cultures
Like "international community", "international law" is little more than an oxymoron to get people's blood pumping.
It does a lot of good, it seems, when you watch how Iraq's soldiers fight and how the bleeders who would scream about the US's fascism completely ignore it. But we aren't fighting "fair" now are we?
I suppose we should ignore the plight of the millions of people dying because of the UN's incompetence because it is more inkeeping with selectively enforced and politically charged international laws? Is that what you're saying?
Originally posted by Aries 1B
There's no chance of communication between us on this issue.
That's obvious. Your view of the world is sad and you should probably just move into groverat's grandparent's bunker.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
...saying that I'm scared is an insult. I'm much less worried now, truth be told....
Well if you prefer the term 'less worried', that's fine. To me, that's the same as scared in this case.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
I thought that fascism was a form of government that placed the collective over the individual.
fas·cism Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
fascism
n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
Originally posted by groverat
The US is a fascist state now.
No. The U.S. behavior in the international community is fascist. Use your brain if you can dig it out of your bunker.
Originally posted by groverat
And the palooka keeps taking the hits and wobbling back for more.
If you can call me a palooka, does that mean I can call you a cunt? Or are both comments outside posting guidelines?
Originally posted by groverat
Moral relativism to an extent. Mostly common sense.
So you'll criticize more relativism when a 'liberal' uses it, but when you or NoahJ uses it, it's OK?
And common sense is certainly relative as well. You'll just have to trust me when I say 'common sense' is different in different parts of the world. If you ever leave your part of the world, you might figure that out for yourself.
Fascism requires faith. Faith demands the believer should believe ludicrous things ... for example, the Catholic trans-substantiation sees people eating the very body of Christ at mass. Not metaphoric body, not symbolic body but the real thing. No ludicrous myth, no faith, no Fascism.
When you see a nation believing a ludicrous myth and defining its nationhood through it, be scared; for example, "The Aryan race is the master race and the Jews are subhuman."
When that nation punishes its own and others for disagreeing, be very scared.
When a nation makes these myths vital to its meaning and exports them violently, shit yourself.
For example, "Violent action discourages terrorists. This war is making the world safer. The US system will sort the area out."
Believing this takes a leap of faith equal in size to Holocaust denial and only marginally less repugnant.
The evidence piles up undeniably and yet to say you disagree makes you un-American, un-patriotic. Or worse. French.
The US is killing people in the pursuit of a demonstrably ludicrous myth. Fascism? Heading for it for certain.
Originally posted by groverat
Like "international community", "international law" is little more than an oxymoron to get people's blood pumping.
It does a lot of good, it seems, when you watch how Iraq's soldiers fight and how the bleeders who would scream about the US's fascism completely ignore it. But we aren't fighting "fair" now are we?
I suppose we should ignore the plight of the millions of people dying because of the UN's incompetence because it is more inkeeping with selectively enforced and politically charged international laws? Is that what you're saying?
No, I am not saying that the US is fascist . . .but I am saying that the belief that one's own international stance is absolute and universaly correc without its being held up to the mediation of critical international discourse is similar to the fascist belief in one's own correctness resulting from one's might.
I am not completely against this war but am against the lack of grace in its introduction . . . it would have been best if diplomacy had wrangled much more support from allies that matter as far as world support . . . Iran/Iraqi exile allies, Iraqi exile forces, UN.
When you discount the only international channel for establishing 'common ground' of moral and legal legitimacy you are in effect saying that you understand the Truth and don't need to accept different perspectives . . . in other words that's arrogant and, a staple of anti-american critique is exactly that, that Americans thnk they know what is good for the world
by denying the need for International discourse we are saying that we think we are the bearers of Truth, of divine right .. . arrogant?!?!?
So you'll criticize more relativism when a 'liberal' uses it, but when you or NoahJ uses it, it's OK?
What in blue **** are you talking about?
You keep your spat with NoahJ between you and NoahJ.
(Taking for granted that you're the "liberal" there.)
And common sense is certainly relative as well. You'll just have to trust me when I say 'common sense' is different in different parts of the world. If you ever leave your part of the world, you might figure that out for yourself.
I like mine, it serves me well.
I'll go ahead and let you keep yours.
My common sense tells me that millions of lives are more important than the workings of a back-biting and impotent international "peace" force. Yours perhaps, tells you something different.
--
Harald:
For example, "Violent action discourages terrorists. This war is making the world safer. The US system will sort the area out."
Believing this takes a leap of faith equal in size to Holocaust denial and only marginally less repugnant.
The evidence piles up undeniably and yet to say you disagree makes you un-American, un-patriotic. Or worse. French.
Our (the US) anti-terrorism policy has killed 6 million people?
Your melodramatics are equal in size to Nathan Lane's in The Birdcage and certainly more repugnant.
What "evidence" do you speak of, sexy? The ~700-1000 civilian casualties in the Iraq war so far?
---
pfflam:
No, I am not saying that the US is fascist . . .but I am saying that the belief that one's own international stance is absolute and universaly correc without its being held up to the mediation of critical international discourse is similar to the fascist belief in one's own correctness resulting from one's might.
Well you think critically then you make a decision. And we did allow our international stance to be held up to the mediate of critical international discourse. We dicked around with the UN for 12 years over Iraq and then finally gave them 5 *more* months to fix the problem.
Should we only do what the UN says we should?
I am not completely against this war but am against the lack of grace in its introduction . . . it would have been best if diplomacy had wrangled much more support from allies that matter as far as world support . . . Iran/Iraqi exile allies, Iraqi exile forces, UN.
You are against the lack of grace in its introduction... stunning.
When you discount the only international channel for establishing 'common ground' of moral and legal legitimacy you are in effect saying that you understand the Truth and don't need to accept different perspectives . . . in other words that's arrogant and, a staple of anti-american critique is exactly that, that Americans thnk they know what is good for the world
The UNSC is a total and complete failure. I do not think we should allow the UNSC to determine our foreign policy. It has failed the people it was designed to help for over 50 years.
I don't care if it is seen as arrogant, those who stand to benefit from this arrogance will certainly be better off than if we continue to subject our will to European diplomats.
Keep ignoring how the UN gets nothing done. After all, you're not the one starving under sanction.
by denying the need for International discourse we are saying that we think we are the bearers of Truth, of divine right .. . arrogant?!?!?
How are we denying INTERNATIONAL DISCOURSE!? HOW? Did we not tie this issue up in the "international community" for over a decade?
Bush brought the issue to the UN, do you not remember that? He gave the UN plenty of time to get moving. The US gave the UN plenty of time go get moving.
But it doesn't hurt you when the UN's reticence costs millions of lives, you live in the wonderful West.
Saddam is just killing his own people, it's none of our business really.
Originally posted by groverat
Our (the US) anti-terrorism policy has killed 6 million people?
No. What are you talking about? Umm ... argue with what I *said* if you please Mr. Journalist. I equate Holocaust denial with the imagination required to think US policy will work. To think that the US anti-terrorism process is going to reduce terror is perverse. You have to really, really, REALLY want to believe that.
Evidence?! Damn, thanks for proving my point.
How much do you want!?
Hosni Mubarak pointing out the US is creating "100 Bin Ladens" ... the first ever suicide attacks in Iraq (by people you're bringing "liberation" too) ... one million walking in Damascus, chanting about jihad ... busloads of Iraqis heading hame to fight ... On Thursday, Syria's Grand mufti, Sheikh Ahmad Kaftaro called on Muslims to engage in a jihad against foreign troops in Iraq ...
... PALESTINE.
Please argue how violent response has helped there. Please give me one example of terror being defeated with guns anywhere in the world. Please explain how the world will now have less terror.
Originally posted by groverat
How are we denying INTERNATIONAL DISCOURSE!? HOW? Did we not tie this issue up in the "international community" for over a decade?
Bush brought the issue to the UN, do you not remember that? He gave the UN plenty of time to get moving. The US gave the UN plenty of time go get moving.
I disagree with this.
Before the inspectors went back in there had been no inspections for four years; this talk of 'a decade' isn't quite right. Then it took (what?) four months to go to war, with the US sending thousands of troops to the Middle East before the inspections were even over.
The US hurried this thing along. Dis the UN all you want, but the US weren't ever going to listen to it so it's not really fair to call it 'toothless'.
A mon avis.
about the "grace" (I knew that would get a rise) the point of grace in diplomacy is to be able to achieve real things without the blunt use of alienating force . . . which is exactly what we did through the manner in which we approached this war . . the consequences of our graceless attitude will be real and will last for many many years.
Bush brought the issue to the UN, do you not remember that? He gave the UN plenty of time to get moving. The US gave the UN plenty of time go get moving.
But it doesn't hurt you when the UN's reticence costs millions of lives, you live in the wonderful West.
Saddam is just killing his own people, it's none of our business really.
Bush brought up his plan ( a masquerade for the real plan Pax Americana and then demanded that the UN do what we say . . . . this is not working with the UN or even understanding the nature of diplomacy . . .its pushy arrogance . . . if he had approached this properly we may actually have had enough force with enough variation of interests apparent behind it to have the Iraqis give up, as was hoped they would do.
oh, and now its up to millions of lives?!?!? next it will be 'the end of the world'
and by the way, the excuse for this war originally said nothing about Saddam and killing his own' that is just a new excuse for during the war . . . . if we cared so much about that we would not have supported SH for so long when we did . . . its just a convenient perspective now cuase it makes us look good
The UNSC is a total and complete failure. I do not think we should allow the UNSC to determine our foreign policy. It has failed the people it was designed to help for over 50 years.
1441?
Please give me one example of terror being defeated with guns anywhere in the world.
Israel.
Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:
What in blue **** are you talking about?
You keep your spat with NoahJ between you and NoahJ.
(Taking for granted that you're the "liberal" there.)
I like mine, it serves me well.
I'll go ahead and let you keep yours.
My common sense tells me that millions of lives are more important than the workings of a back-biting and impotent international "peace" force. Yours perhaps, tells you something different.
--
Harald:
Our (the US) anti-terrorism policy has killed 6 million people?
Your melodramatics are equal in size to Nathan Lane's in The Birdcage and certainly more repugnant.
What "evidence" do you speak of, sexy? The ~700-1000 civilian casualties in the Iraq war so far?
---
pfflam:
Well you think critically then you make a decision. And we did allow our international stance to be held up to the mediate of critical international discourse. We dicked around with the UN for 12 years over Iraq and then finally gave them 5 *more* months to fix the problem.
Should we only do what the UN says we should?
You are against the lack of grace in its introduction... stunning.
The UNSC is a total and complete failure. I do not think we should allow the UNSC to determine our foreign policy. It has failed the people it was designed to help for over 50 years.
I don't care if it is seen as arrogant, those who stand to benefit from this arrogance will certainly be better off than if we continue to subject our will to European diplomats.
Keep ignoring how the UN gets nothing done. After all, you're not the one starving under sanction.
How are we denying INTERNATIONAL DISCOURSE!? HOW? Did we not tie this issue up in the "international community" for over a decade?
Bush brought the issue to the UN, do you not remember that? He gave the UN plenty of time to get moving. The US gave the UN plenty of time go get moving.
But it doesn't hurt you when the UN's reticence costs millions of lives, you live in the wonderful West.
Saddam is just killing his own people, it's none of our business really.
Yes, yes, yes, but Bush didn't provide proof of his allegations. Remember?
Just because you don't like their methods or decisions doesn't make them ineffective. And of course you ignore the other points that have been brought up a dozen times. There are many countries in which the leader is killing their own people. Why are we ( really ) focused on this one? Then you would of course bring up the old mantra of " he's a threat ". Well, why don't we attack Korea then? Now there's a real threat ( I'm not really advocting this it's just an example ) their missles can reach us ( there's proof and everything ). We'd have a real fight on our hands then. But they meet your criteria for this action.
There are other examples so what are you suggesting we do? Take on the entire world and remake it in an image that we like? That's fascism in my book.
This is why your logic just doesn't wash. I sense ether an insult or being ignored will be your answer.