Spying to legitimize a war makes sense. You would prefer a war based on speculation and hearsay? Spying provides intel so that decisions can be made with as much knowledge of a situation as is possible. Doing it in the name of democracy isn't ironic either. Why would one believe that knowing what other govenments are planning is against democratic ideals? There is nothing ironic about intelligence gathering for the defense of democracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never will tolerate a preventiv war anyway, but that's another story.
The general job of the UN and the UN secuity council is
to stabilize conflicts and invent a peaceful situation around the globe. To spy on security council members, is not like spying just another diplomat, it damages the whole world and I don't know if the US Gov. makes a lot of friends with that behaviour. I mean you can spy, but then you have to be sure, nobody finds it out.
Well whats more ironic than saying
Iraq needs a democratic system (I totally agree with that), and to get that, let's spy out members of worldgov. to find a way and legitimate a war which will kill thousends of people.
By a nation which supported most bad dictators around the globe and with a president, elected by a judge !
France is very much still an ally. And it's an ally that spends more time and effort <a href="http://www.iht.com/IHT/DIPLO/98/jf061698.html" target="_blank">spying</a> on the US than probably any other nation, with the possible exceptions of Russia and China. It's one of the few nations to increase spending on espionage after the end of the Cold War, with most of that increase going to <a href="http://www.nap.edu/issues/13.2/goodma.htm" target="_blank">economic espionage</a> in the US. Not that France is <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/ioss/threat96/part05.htm" target="_blank">alone</a> among our allies in doing this. Nations use esionage to look out for their interests. For most nations these days, most of the time, that means economics. For the US, right now, that means UN voting. Often the two intersect, as with votes at WTO negotiations. What's the story here?
The general job of the UN and the UN secuity council is
to stabilize conflicts and invent a peaceful situation around the globe. To spy on security council members, is not like spying just another diplomat, it damages the whole world and I don't know if the US Gov. makes a lot of friends with that behaviour. I mean you can spy, but then you have to be sure, nobody finds it out.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right, is is meant as a vehicle for diplomacy and negotiation of world events. What's wrong with having prior knowledge, before going into a negotiation?
[quote]Originally posted by iBeni:
<strong>
Well whats more ironic than saying
Iraq needs a democratic system (I totally agree with that), and to get that, let's spy out members of worldgov. to find a way and legitimate a war which will kill thousends of people.
By a nation which supported most bad dictators around the globe and with a president, elected by a judge !
Democracy hurray !!!
Ha, ha I got tears in my eyes... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Democracy Hurray!!..yes, elected by a judge. Using the systems and mechanisms put in place by the founders of the American electoral system. You make it sound like there was no election. Sorry to inform you, but there was. And it was close. So mechanisms were implemented that were set in place for just such an occasion. That really was democracy at work. I am not sure what fantasy world you live in, but in the reall world, all govenments spy. Even the most democratic of govenments spy. Democracy was never founded on any principle that said "thou shalt not spy on other nations". Espionage and intelligence gathering is a part of international relations..it happens.
[quote]I see by your definition, an ally must follow you blindly, where ever you go.<hr></blockquote>
I don't recall giving a definition for an ally or stating the reasons why France might not be considered an ally. Perhaps you can point me towards my stated definition to which you refer.
I don't expect allies to follow blindly either. Although maybe you could persuade me that Israeli support ought to be a given in general since we are seriously covering their ass. But that's off point.
I haven't picked a reason yet for why France is not an ally but once I do I'll get back to you on my rationale.
I don't recall giving a definition for an ally or stating the reasons why France might not be considered an ally. Perhaps you can point me towards my stated definition to which you refer.
I don't expect allies to follow blindly either. Although maybe you could persuade me that Israeli support ought to be a given in general since we are seriously covering their ass. But that's off point.
I haven't picked a reason yet for why France is not an ally but once I do I'll get back to you on my rationale. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh i see you are above arguments : CoD is like GoD whatever he say, he is right, there is no need for him to argue
"We can´t really find one justification to invade Iraq but we´ll think of some and try them out on you one by one okay?"
What is the argumental principle behind this form of justification? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you catch this trend too? I did a few weeks ago, but see it from the other side. No made how blatantly Iraq is in violation, these anti-war types say "we´ll think of some reason to let Saddam off and try them out on you one by one okay?"
I mean, Bush says he wants to goto war with out the UN and Europe calls him evil/crazy. So he goes to the UN and gets 1441, an obvious resolution for military action in the event of violations, in UN-talk. So we send in inspectors, who report that Saddam is not disarming nor cooperating with the inspectors more than superficially. Again, this is Bush's fault some how. Saddam violates 1441, and you guys say "oh no, Bush is evil crazy, we can't allow him to attack". So Bush holds back and prepares and presents another resolution to the UN, and again, the anti-war movement thinks up "Bush is evil, look into his eyes,!" It gets tired, that no matter how much delay and discussion this rabid-dog of a president has allowed (do rabid dogs usually allow parties involved the chance to discuss the situation at hand?) the UN multiple opportunities and a long period of time to back him. Now, his actions, right or wrong, do not show someone in a rush to war alone. It shows someone willing to allow others time o decide if they support the US.
At what point to you stop making up reason for Bush being evil and focus on the evil in Iraq right now?
[quote]"We can´t really find one justification to invade Iraq but we´ll think of some and try them out on you one by one okay?"
What is the argumental principle behind this form of justification? <hr></blockquote>
I believe the doctrine is known as self fulfilling prophecy. Or is it self fulfilling profitcy? I dunno.
For the most part I would agree that the administration is searching for a political means to Saddam's end.
But of course, just because they are conducting their diplomatic campaign with skills comparable to what one would expect from Ren and Stimply does not mean that there are not legit reasons for war. I believe that there are regardless of whether they coincide with Shrubbery's.
[quote]Oh i see you are above arguments : CoD is like GoD whatever he say, he is right, there is no need for him to argue<hr></blockquote>
Me? Actually an amiable atheist; alternatively an apathetic agnostic are accurate assessments. Or so I think, assuming that I think, that is when I am not thinking about women. But let us not put Descartes before the whores.
Having slept and eaten breakfast, I have decided that France is no longer an ally as long as Chirac leads their nation. I cannot abide by a leader who wants to test nukes. I am strictly anti-nuke. Therefore I have deemed all ties between our nations severed. Get back to me when someone other than Chirac or LePen takes over.
And for the philosophical level, good try. But there is a great difference between god and a governement. God do not interfere and thus your freedoom are respected. I don't think that gov wish to not interfere ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
God does not interfere??? You read the Bible right?
<strong> I have decided that France is no longer an ally as long as Chirac leads their nation. I cannot abide by a leader who wants to test nukes. I am strictly anti-nuke. Therefore I have deemed all ties between our nations severed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh God, what are you going to when the US starts testing its mini-nukes?
[quote]Can the US not be its own ally?<hr></blockquote>
No of course not. To be an ally entails being a seperate entity. The US is not a seperate entity from itself of course. Therefore the US cannot be its own ally in any sense regardless of nuclear war.
Furthermore, I am only opposed to big nukes not mini-me nukes. Big Nukes are a proven technology, tried and true. Little nukes need polishing, much like fine Italian wingtips.
<strong>So he goes to the UN and gets 1441, an obvious resolution for military action in the event of violations, in UN-talk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Furthermore, I am only opposed to big nukes not mini-me nukes. Big Nukes are a proven technology, tried and true. Little nukes need polishing, much like fine Italian wingtips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
France stopped to test nukes, big or mini some years ago. USA stopped before, because she was ready before France : i mean her nuke simulator was ready.
The site is now open, and there is no radioactivity in this aera.
If you are against nukes, you are again all nukes wheneve they are small or big. It's a question of principle there is no big or small.
Le pen is not in power in France, there is no FN deputy or senator in France.
Comments
<strong>
Spying to legitimize a war makes sense. You would prefer a war based on speculation and hearsay? Spying provides intel so that decisions can be made with as much knowledge of a situation as is possible. Doing it in the name of democracy isn't ironic either. Why would one believe that knowing what other govenments are planning is against democratic ideals? There is nothing ironic about intelligence gathering for the defense of democracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never will tolerate a preventiv war anyway, but that's another story.
The general job of the UN and the UN secuity council is
to stabilize conflicts and invent a peaceful situation around the globe. To spy on security council members, is not like spying just another diplomat, it damages the whole world and I don't know if the US Gov. makes a lot of friends with that behaviour. I mean you can spy, but then you have to be sure, nobody finds it out.
Well whats more ironic than saying
Iraq needs a democratic system (I totally agree with that), and to get that, let's spy out members of worldgov. to find a way and legitimate a war which will kill thousends of people.
By a nation which supported most bad dictators around the globe and with a president, elected by a judge !
Democracy hurray !!!
Ha, ha I got tears in my eyes...
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Pilmour Boy ]</p>
<strong>
The general job of the UN and the UN secuity council is
to stabilize conflicts and invent a peaceful situation around the globe. To spy on security council members, is not like spying just another diplomat, it damages the whole world and I don't know if the US Gov. makes a lot of friends with that behaviour. I mean you can spy, but then you have to be sure, nobody finds it out.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right, is is meant as a vehicle for diplomacy and negotiation of world events. What's wrong with having prior knowledge, before going into a negotiation?
[quote]Originally posted by iBeni:
<strong>
Well whats more ironic than saying
Iraq needs a democratic system (I totally agree with that), and to get that, let's spy out members of worldgov. to find a way and legitimate a war which will kill thousends of people.
By a nation which supported most bad dictators around the globe and with a president, elected by a judge !
Democracy hurray !!!
Ha, ha I got tears in my eyes... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Democracy Hurray!!..yes, elected by a judge. Using the systems and mechanisms put in place by the founders of the American electoral system. You make it sound like there was no election. Sorry to inform you, but there was. And it was close. So mechanisms were implemented that were set in place for just such an occasion. That really was democracy at work. I am not sure what fantasy world you live in, but in the reall world, all govenments spy. Even the most democratic of govenments spy. Democracy was never founded on any principle that said "thou shalt not spy on other nations". Espionage and intelligence gathering is a part of international relations..it happens.
<strong>France is not our ally anymore.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see by your definition, an ally must follow you blindly, where ever you go. Luckily , your governement said otherwise.
I don't recall giving a definition for an ally or stating the reasons why France might not be considered an ally. Perhaps you can point me towards my stated definition to which you refer.
I don't expect allies to follow blindly either. Although maybe you could persuade me that Israeli support ought to be a given in general since we are seriously covering their ass. But that's off point.
I haven't picked a reason yet for why France is not an ally but once I do I'll get back to you on my rationale.
<strong>
I haven't picked a reason yet for why France is not an ally but once I do I'll get back to you on my rationale.
Oh I see a trend.
"We can´t really find one justification to invade Iraq but we´ll think of some and try them out on you one by one okay?"
What is the argumental principle behind this form of justification?
<strong>
I don't recall giving a definition for an ally or stating the reasons why France might not be considered an ally. Perhaps you can point me towards my stated definition to which you refer.
I don't expect allies to follow blindly either. Although maybe you could persuade me that Israeli support ought to be a given in general since we are seriously covering their ass. But that's off point.
I haven't picked a reason yet for why France is not an ally but once I do I'll get back to you on my rationale.
Oh i see you are above arguments : CoD is like GoD whatever he say, he is right, there is no need for him to argue
<strong>
Oh I see a trend.
"We can´t really find one justification to invade Iraq but we´ll think of some and try them out on you one by one okay?"
What is the argumental principle behind this form of justification?
Did you catch this trend too? I did a few weeks ago, but see it from the other side. No made how blatantly Iraq is in violation, these anti-war types say "we´ll think of some reason to let Saddam off and try them out on you one by one okay?"
I mean, Bush says he wants to goto war with out the UN and Europe calls him evil/crazy. So he goes to the UN and gets 1441, an obvious resolution for military action in the event of violations, in UN-talk. So we send in inspectors, who report that Saddam is not disarming nor cooperating with the inspectors more than superficially. Again, this is Bush's fault some how. Saddam violates 1441, and you guys say "oh no, Bush is evil crazy, we can't allow him to attack". So Bush holds back and prepares and presents another resolution to the UN, and again, the anti-war movement thinks up "Bush is evil, look into his eyes,!" It gets tired, that no matter how much delay and discussion this rabid-dog of a president has allowed (do rabid dogs usually allow parties involved the chance to discuss the situation at hand?) the UN multiple opportunities and a long period of time to back him. Now, his actions, right or wrong, do not show someone in a rush to war alone. It shows someone willing to allow others time o decide if they support the US.
At what point to you stop making up reason for Bush being evil and focus on the evil in Iraq right now?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
What is the argumental principle behind this form of justification? <hr></blockquote>
I believe the doctrine is known as self fulfilling prophecy. Or is it self fulfilling profitcy? I dunno.
For the most part I would agree that the administration is searching for a political means to Saddam's end.
But of course, just because they are conducting their diplomatic campaign with skills comparable to what one would expect from Ren and Stimply does not mean that there are not legit reasons for war. I believe that there are regardless of whether they coincide with Shrubbery's.
[quote]Oh i see you are above arguments : CoD is like GoD whatever he say, he is right, there is no need for him to argue<hr></blockquote>
Me? Actually an amiable atheist; alternatively an apathetic agnostic are accurate assessments. Or so I think, assuming that I think, that is when I am not thinking about women. But let us not put Descartes before the whores.
Having slept and eaten breakfast, I have decided that France is no longer an ally as long as Chirac leads their nation. I cannot abide by a leader who wants to test nukes. I am strictly anti-nuke. Therefore I have deemed all ties between our nations severed. Get back to me when someone other than Chirac or LePen takes over.
<strong>
And for the philosophical level, good try. But there is a great difference between god and a governement. God do not interfere and thus your freedoom are respected. I don't think that gov wish to not interfere ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
God does not interfere??? You read the Bible right?
<strong> I have decided that France is no longer an ally as long as Chirac leads their nation. I cannot abide by a leader who wants to test nukes. I am strictly anti-nuke. Therefore I have deemed all ties between our nations severed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh God, what are you going to when the US starts testing its mini-nukes?
Can the US not be its own ally?
Headaches.
No of course not. To be an ally entails being a seperate entity. The US is not a seperate entity from itself of course. Therefore the US cannot be its own ally in any sense regardless of nuclear war.
Furthermore, I am only opposed to big nukes not mini-me nukes. Big Nukes are a proven technology, tried and true. Little nukes need polishing, much like fine Italian wingtips.
<strong>So he goes to the UN and gets 1441, an obvious resolution for military action in the event of violations, in UN-talk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
The only thing obvious here is that you did not follow what happened at UN when 1441 was passed.
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
The only thing obvious here is that you did not follow what happened at UN when 1441 was passed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
The only thing obvious here is that you did not follow what happened at UN when 1441 was passed.
<strong>
Furthermore, I am only opposed to big nukes not mini-me nukes. Big Nukes are a proven technology, tried and true. Little nukes need polishing, much like fine Italian wingtips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
France stopped to test nukes, big or mini some years ago. USA stopped before, because she was ready before France : i mean her nuke simulator was ready.
The site is now open, and there is no radioactivity in this aera.
If you are against nukes, you are again all nukes wheneve they are small or big. It's a question of principle there is no big or small.
Le pen is not in power in France, there is no FN deputy or senator in France.
You have no real argument : that's all.