I think the outrage over genetically modified foods is reactionary and ungrounded.
I don't fully agree with your statement. It is a new techonology, we don't even understand yet fully how all the genes work (we understand what some genes do but not the whole thing). To "play god" right now and let it get out into the wild where it can interact in unpredictable ways is just bad science.
Granted, the individual change might be harmless, but what about the interaction with other plants and animals? The world is a very very complex system. As long as we don't understand it completly to make changes to it could be pretty bad. And I don't have blind faith (like most of the US seems to have) that science will safe us from ourselves.
I support the development of alternative fuel sources (even nuclear) but I DON'T support the blind application of all things "scientific" when the consequences could be catastrophic.
But that's the problem. Technology is always considered a "savior" but hardly is it truly tested anymore. Economic driven science is good and bad at the same time. Good because it gives money and is pushing progress. Bad because there are financial interrests at stake and ethics are never what guides business decisions.
Thus, for now I prefer my tomato without any non-tomato genes.
Well not really the calculation but the basis you operate from.
Rome didn't rise to power in 50 years, it took rome a couple of hundred years until it reached it's vastest expanse.
As such if you take the same measurement on the American Empire your downfall could happen a lot faster, and I am pretty sure it will. The world is "smaller" these days and the speed is a lot faster. What allowed the US to grap power in mere 50 years can also topple it in as much time, if not faster.
Usually getting up takes a lot longer than falling down. So I wouldn't count on just another 150, or 300 years. It could happen in our lifetime.
9/11, in the grand scale of things, should have already been forgotten.
In the grand scale of things 9/11 doesn't even matter. Exactly out of the reasons you mention yourself. There are more people dying a senseless death any deay all over the world, and nobody cares.
The thing the american public (thanks in part of the spin masters at the government) never understood was that this was just a matter of time that something like that had to happen. Exactly because of the US foreign policy.
What amazes me to no end though is how many people are actually talking the party line. I mean really: "They are jealous of our freedom"?
Reality is that (for some reason) a vast amount of the US population has managed to see itself constantly as victims. At home, abroad. Heck, I can't shake the impression that most people see themselves with the back to the wall and that everyone is out to get them.
Policy that is made out of fear is the worst kind of policy that can be made. I hope / wish that they would stop for a moment and think. I had really hoped that 9/11 would have acted as a wake up call to the masses but instead it just drove them further away.
It is a popular way of thinking in the US right now (apparantly) that the world is all against the US, when the opposit is quite true. Most people / governments don't have a problem with the US in itself but rather with the way it tries to act out of fear with disregard to anybody else. Nobody likes a bully, much less a frightened one who kicks everything that comes even close to him.
It is shocking how easily people are being manipulated into thinking this is all being done for their own good. The basis of all this at the moment seems to be the creation of a black and white world: with us/against us - patriotic/unpatriotic etc. making more and more difficult to express disagreement and encouraging censorship.
This is because people want to believe they are safe.
I agree with Michael Moore on the "Bowling for Columbine" conclusion: America is a land of fear.
I am not kidding you. I grew up in europe and you always hear the "America is the land of the free" but when I was in the states I didn't feel free. I felt like I was constantly locked in. Gated Communities are just one of the examples.
The fear of, whatever. Adbusters a while ago had an issue that dealt with depression and other things and one of the interresting articles was that drug companies on purpose "invent" new epidemics in order to sell their drugs.
Fear sells (much more in america than in other countries) for various reasons.
Have a look at the current SARS epidemic that is going around. Toronto (where I live now) has been hit pretty hard, or so is at least the public perception. The reality is that chances are slim to none that you get infected with SARS (unless you are in a hospital where SARS is already around) yet the media (apparantly extremly in the US) is reporting about it like the world goes down.
I read somewhere that people want to be scared and of course they want to be feel safe as well (hence roller coasters).
As long as the government can make people afraid (while at the same time at least giving the illusion to protect them) they will go along with it. Goering was right. Nothing is as easy to manipulate as a scared person.
It seems to me that in Germany over 90% of workers are covered by collective bargaining agreements - these agreements presumably give workers no ability to negotiate with their employers as individuals.
No, what that does mean is that there is an industry standard, they have to offer you this, but you are free to tell them you work for less or negotiate your own. You can always work for less if you want to but they can't force you to. That's the nice thing about it.
It's artificail in that it is imposed by government for the express purpose of trying to increase the rates of employment. If it weren't for this presumably the rate of unemployment would be higher.
Nice try.
Germany doesn't limit you to 36 hours a week
Federal regulations limit the workweek to a maximum of 48 hours, but the number of hours of work per week is regulated by contracts that directly or indirectly affect 80 percent of the working population. The average workweek for industrial workers is 36 hours in the western part of the country and approximately 39 hours in the eastern states; rest periods for lunch are accepted practices. Provisions for overtime, holiday, and weekend pay vary depending upon the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
So this is not a thing that the goverment mandates but something that unions have come up with.
In fact Germany in a way is a lot "freer" than the US when it comes to job negotiations:
There is no legislated or administratively determined minimum wage; wages and salaries are set either by collective bargaining agreements between unions and employer federations or by individual contracts. Covering approximately 90 percent of all wage and salary-earners, the collective bargaining agreements set minimum pay rates and are enforceable by law. These minimums provide a decent standard of living for a worker and family.
This comment is utterly preposterous on the face of it. The US has the lowest unemployment rates and highest per capita income of any developed country.
You make the mistake to think that the stats you are reading are actually the same.
The way they are gathered between the US and Europe for example is completly different.
Unofficial it is said the US has an unemployment rate of 10% and that is roughly the same ballpark the EU has.
I can shoot someone in the head, using my mouse, about 3 times as fast as they can aim with a joystick.
Maybe, but aiming with the joystick actually isn't all that bad. It might be though that there is a bit of a "aiming assitance" though I played it on heroic lately and I doubt they have it in there.
What I noticed though is that the "dead zone" for the rifle for example is pretty big.... Hard to miss anything.
Yeah I am sure the US is very much aware on how the "real" deal in a war looks like.
Watching American TV Coverage of the war is like going to Disneyland, you get a little bit frightened but they won't show you enough to give you nightmares. Ever saw the pictures from the last Gulf war where the americans bombed the "highway of death"? No? I am not surprised, the american media deemed the pictures as "too violent" and "too disturbing".
It actually does show you some things you'll never see in american media. The stories of the photographers are worth a read too.
Compare this to the coverage of other news outlets around the world and tell me again that people can differenciate. They cannot, because they only know the computer and the media makes the real thing appear like the computer game.
Besides, it's not the leaders, it is an independant organization that checks and labels these things. Not only computer games but movies, books, any kind of media.
BTW, the mindset is not forced, if you are 18 or older you can buy the game and any other item on the list, just kids can't (legally) buy it.
If losing a war is what it takes to become wise about the horrors of war and the available pacifistic alternatives, I hope that the US/UK alliance loses (or at least not wins) this war.
Wrong,
They have to win this war but it has to come at a high price. Only then the blood thirst is hopefully stilled.
Look at it this way. The US after 9/11 acted like Terror is something that has never happened to the world before, the fight wars like you can only win them, and even when they lost (Vietnam) the full impact really never came home.
No, the US has to win it because at the end of the loosing in Iraq would be worse, for the US and the world, but it has to come at a high price, one that is felt at home as well.
I'm not overly trusting of our government, but I'll readily take their word over Saddam's.
"In a war, truth is it's first victim." Besides, I don't trust the media that much in general, and you shouldn't either.
From http://www.boortz.com/march20-03.htm
Interresting, but here is a question for you: Iraq is down on it's knees for year, it doesn't seem to have any WMD's (after all if he had it, why wouldn't he use it? It's not like he has anything to loose right now, does he?).
Yet the only country in the region with Nuclear weapons (Israel) is defying over 30 UN resolutions on various topics, they bulldoze refugee camps, use heavy artillery, tanks and attack helicopters in civillian areas, yet the US does nothing, in fact the only thing they do is veto anything that is passed in the security council and giving aid, military and financially. Isn't that very hypocrytical? Who is doing more right now in the region to disturb the peace?
I can't speak for the U.S. government, but frankly I don't care about the world's opinion.
Why this arrogance? Why do you think you don't need to hear what the world has to say? Because they are "unimportant"?
I would like to see the U.S. pull out of the U.N. and tell them to take their headquarters out of New York.
I heard the same thing from quite a few people from the other side of the fence. They would agree with you, why deal with a rogue nation? Why treat them as equals?
I think they've shown themselves to be a bunch of talkers who do not back up their words with meaningful action.
The idea behind the security council always was to find a peaceful solution to conflicts, and yes that includes talking about the topics at hand.
It's ludicrous to me that countries that have long sat in the protection of the U.S. can then sit in judgement of how the U.S. provides that protection.
In a democracy, in a world where apparantly the US is supposed to be the good guys people should be able to question the US in every aspect. And yes, we should be able to decide how we want to be "protected" and we should also be able to decide when we need protection. Or how would you like it when you walk down the street and a police car pulls up and just throws you in the back to "protect" you from something you don't consider a threat? Wouldn't that infright of your rights? Wouldn't you complain?
. This discussion is not meant in any way to justify my opinion of the matter.
No? So you're just trolling?
If people who share my opinion do not speak out though, it would give the impression that the anti-war crowd is larger than it in fact is.
Now you are painting black and white again. Did it ever occure to you that a lot of the people who are now in the "anti-war" movement are so because there is no other way for them to go? That they in essence agree that Saddam isn't a nice guy but that they don't agree with the way this situation is handled?
Let's face it, the current US Administration has absolutly no clue about diplomacy, nor do they have a clue about how the world feels about them.
The "You're either with us or the Terrorist" speech that Bush gave after 9/11 sounded for a lot of people like: "You are either with us or against us.". And that is the problem, a lot of people are on neither side. I am not with the terrorists, but I am most definetly not with the US administration on their crusade either. Considering Bush's statement this automatically makes me one of the bad guys and as such I am against the US. And there lies the problem. By painting black and white the US has managed to alienate 90% of the world population, by not allowing a different opinion they are drifting towards what they claim to fight.
The US stands for "Freedom and Democracy"? No, for most people outside (and quite a few inside the US) the Flag stands for Hypocracy, and it doesn't seem to get any better.
The missiles he's fired at the U.S. were of the type that he was prohibited from having. It was not only weapons of mass destruction that he was forbidden from using.
Iraq claims they didn't fire it. I don't think we'll never know who did what.
I'm sure we could find a bunch of lawyers that would say it was illegal. We could find a bunch that would say it's not illegal as well.
The majority of lawyes and law experts will agree that the attack of the US on Iraq was indeed illegal, the Security Council did not approve of it as such.
Here's is one article that discusses the legal implications:
Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. It states:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security
There is only one legal basis for the use of force other than self-defense: Security Council directed or authorized use of force to restore or maintain international peace and security pursuant to its responsibilities under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.1 Article 42 of that chapter provides:
Should the Security Council consider that measures [not involving the use of force] provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Here is one question for you though: Why do you or the US Government actually care about the worlds opinion? In the last couple of months it seemed quite clear that you don't care, so why now? Why all of the sudden do you feel (as a nation) the need to justify your actions after all?
Both of them quite clearly influence american policy, wouldn't you agree?
Chirac said that under no circumstances would the use of force be appropriate, and they would oppose any resolution setting a deadline. That eliminated any incentive for Saddam to disarm or truly cooperate with inspectors. France also opposed a stronger inspection regime than the one led by Hans Blix, again weakening inspections.
Yes he did, because it was clear at that point in time that this was the only thing the US wanted: To use force.
The US also careered quite niecly around on what they actually wanted:
First it was inspections, then it was disarmament, then all of the sudden that wasn't good enough either and it was clear they wanted to oust Saddam.
Someone has agendas here and if you read on the PNAC website you'll realize that it is about power. Oil might not be the number one reason for them to go in, but I am sure it is a nice price once they get it.
You are right, you haven't had a family member murdered by someone just interested in "property damage." I'm not going to risk losing a family member to give them the benefit of the doubt.
No I haven't I had someone killed by a drunk driver though, but the reality is (careful I am known to be a cynic) that things like that happen and to think that you can prevent all of it is a nice illusion, you cannot. You can take precautions but to live in fears of what might happen is IMO stupid.
I make sure to put myself in situations that don't warrant me testing my abilities.
Which is the wisest choice and I don't say: "Well walk into a crack house." But I just think that the "I first shoot because thats the only right thing to do." mentality that gets me, but then it seems a populare theme these days, (to bring it back on topic), isn't it?
You seem to be forgetting that in order to stop the U.S. and the rest of the world from de-throning him 12 years ago, Saddam agreed not to amass 'guns' anymore. It's not blackmail when he's expected to honor his part of the bargain.
No Weapons of Mass Destruction, he was still allowed to have his tanks and other "toys". And so far there has been no proof that he has them, now is there?
Also according to several international lawyers, the two resolutions Bush is refering to have expired the moment they kicked Saddam out of Kuweit, which makes the current war an attack on Iraq and as such it is illegal.
I'm not sure why you think I would write that Saddam was a nice guy.
Because in the past in discussions like this people at this point turned around and said something to the effect: "I am sure in your opinion Saddam is a nice guy.".
Let's agree to disagree. I am currently sitting my place and the door isn't even locked, I am not in the middle of no where but in the middle of downtown Toronto.
I also don't think that if someone who wants to harm you (and breaks in the house out of that reason) is not going to be careful not to alert you or does not try to overpower you right from the start. Usually if someone wants to hurt you they tail you for quite a while to get an understanding of their "pray".
Most other home invasions tend to be on the side of property damage and I think escalating it would be the wrong thing to do, but that's me and obviously we don't see eye to eye.
Carry your gun but I think it just gives you a wrong sense of security. If someone is out to get you chances are they will.
This is true, but if someone breaks into my home they wont see me draw a gun. They will just get shot. I will not intimidate, hesitate, or fire a warning shot. As soon as they are within view, they get shot. I know my house much better than they would, and know how to shoot a gun; likely better than them as well.
If we assume you hit they might not just fall over dead.
As for my aunt, she walked through her front door and the guy didn't want to go to jail so he stabbed her to death. He still got caught, and served 7 years. That's bullshit.
And you in her situation would have been able to defend yourself? Or your wife? Or your kids?
If the robber has to expect that he gets shot at, don't you think he uses the same logic and shoots first?
But I agree, 7 years for murder is not enough, lock 'em up and throw the keys away.
As for my cynicism and lack of value of life, it's backwards. You see, I just value other peoples lives more than someone who is breaking into my home. For instance, my family over their life. I protect my family, and my way of life above all. Especially some junky trying to break into my home.
If your neighbourhood is that bad maybe you should move?
Nothing ever does, but I've been in some pretty tight situations and it has worked out well for me to act proactively.
Minimising risk works, yes, I agree and that is a good tactic. Escalating the situation out of fear what might happen is stupid though.
My aunt was murdered in her home by a burglar.
Under what circumstances? Trying to resist or by playing along? Or just "because"?
My personal experience dictates it's not worth the risk to not act.
The question is how you act. By playing along you can walk away, by drawing a gun you automatically force the other person to protect themselves as well.
By my actions, they will end up dead.
They might, or you will end up dead or both.
I do not play around when safety is concerned, and I'm not about to cripple someone and leave them to sue me.
Charming, [sarcasm]I appreciate it that you value life so much.[/sarcasm]
And there we europeans are accused of being too cynical.
The U.S. gave Saddam every opportunity to first disarm and then to remove himself from power and prevent war. Saddam was interested in doing neither. No amount of U.N. Inspectors was going to make it would have changed a thing.
Yeah, blackmail makes people so much more likely to do what I want them to do.
See it this way: "Give me your gun or I shoot you." Would you give the gun? I doubt it.
No, that doesn't make Saddam a nice guy (as you probably were about to write now) but it makes his reaction understandable.
No what I was saying is that when the US went into the security council they already knew they wanted the war. They didn't care about any Weapons.
Furthermore they aren't interrested in bringing democracy to the country but have other goals (whatever they might be) and the UN was only considered a "nice to have".
Chirac and others took the US Government by it's word ("We want to find WMD") and tried to find them.
statement by President Jacques Chirac, who said France would veto any resolution authorising war. "Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'," President Chirac said
Yes, after the US administration had made clear that they would push for war no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunatly you're right. The middle ground is not something (most) people rally too... I guess that why extremism is such a great part of our lives.
I see myself more in the middle than the poles, but that makes it mostly pretty lonely.
I am a huge proponent of science.
So am I.
I think the outrage over genetically modified foods is reactionary and ungrounded.
I don't fully agree with your statement. It is a new techonology, we don't even understand yet fully how all the genes work (we understand what some genes do but not the whole thing). To "play god" right now and let it get out into the wild where it can interact in unpredictable ways is just bad science.
Granted, the individual change might be harmless, but what about the interaction with other plants and animals? The world is a very very complex system. As long as we don't understand it completly to make changes to it could be pretty bad. And I don't have blind faith (like most of the US seems to have) that science will safe us from ourselves.
I support the development of alternative fuel sources (even nuclear) but I DON'T support the blind application of all things "scientific" when the consequences could be catastrophic.
But that's the problem. Technology is always considered a "savior" but hardly is it truly tested anymore. Economic driven science is good and bad at the same time. Good because it gives money and is pushing progress. Bad because there are financial interrests at stake and ethics are never what guides business decisions.
Thus, for now I prefer my tomato without any non-tomato genes.
There is a slight mistake in your calculation.
Well not really the calculation but the basis you operate from.
Rome didn't rise to power in 50 years, it took rome a couple of hundred years until it reached it's vastest expanse.
As such if you take the same measurement on the American Empire your downfall could happen a lot faster, and I am pretty sure it will. The world is "smaller" these days and the speed is a lot faster. What allowed the US to grap power in mere 50 years can also topple it in as much time, if not faster.
Usually getting up takes a lot longer than falling down. So I wouldn't count on just another 150, or 300 years. It could happen in our lifetime.
9/11, in the grand scale of things, should have already been forgotten.
In the grand scale of things 9/11 doesn't even matter. Exactly out of the reasons you mention yourself. There are more people dying a senseless death any deay all over the world, and nobody cares.
The thing the american public (thanks in part of the spin masters at the government) never understood was that this was just a matter of time that something like that had to happen. Exactly because of the US foreign policy.
What amazes me to no end though is how many people are actually talking the party line. I mean really: "They are jealous of our freedom"?
Reality is that (for some reason) a vast amount of the US population has managed to see itself constantly as victims. At home, abroad. Heck, I can't shake the impression that most people see themselves with the back to the wall and that everyone is out to get them.
Policy that is made out of fear is the worst kind of policy that can be made. I hope / wish that they would stop for a moment and think. I had really hoped that 9/11 would have acted as a wake up call to the masses but instead it just drove them further away.
It is a popular way of thinking in the US right now (apparantly) that the world is all against the US, when the opposit is quite true. Most people / governments don't have a problem with the US in itself but rather with the way it tries to act out of fear with disregard to anybody else. Nobody likes a bully, much less a frightened one who kicks everything that comes even close to him.
It is shocking how easily people are being manipulated into thinking this is all being done for their own good. The basis of all this at the moment seems to be the creation of a black and white world: with us/against us - patriotic/unpatriotic etc. making more and more difficult to express disagreement and encouraging censorship.
This is because people want to believe they are safe.
I agree with Michael Moore on the "Bowling for Columbine" conclusion: America is a land of fear.
I am not kidding you. I grew up in europe and you always hear the "America is the land of the free" but when I was in the states I didn't feel free. I felt like I was constantly locked in. Gated Communities are just one of the examples.
The fear of, whatever. Adbusters a while ago had an issue that dealt with depression and other things and one of the interresting articles was that drug companies on purpose "invent" new epidemics in order to sell their drugs.
Fear sells (much more in america than in other countries) for various reasons.
Have a look at the current SARS epidemic that is going around. Toronto (where I live now) has been hit pretty hard, or so is at least the public perception. The reality is that chances are slim to none that you get infected with SARS (unless you are in a hospital where SARS is already around) yet the media (apparantly extremly in the US) is reporting about it like the world goes down.
I read somewhere that people want to be scared and of course they want to be feel safe as well (hence roller coasters).
As long as the government can make people afraid (while at the same time at least giving the illusion to protect them) they will go along with it. Goering was right. Nothing is as easy to manipulate as a scared person.
It seems to me that in Germany over 90% of workers are covered by collective bargaining agreements - these agreements presumably give workers no ability to negotiate with their employers as individuals.
No, what that does mean is that there is an industry standard, they have to offer you this, but you are free to tell them you work for less or negotiate your own. You can always work for less if you want to but they can't force you to. That's the nice thing about it.
Nice try.
Germany doesn't limit you to 36 hours a week
So this is not a thing that the goverment mandates but something that unions have come up with.
In fact Germany in a way is a lot "freer" than the US when it comes to job negotiations:
The entire text can be found here or in Google Cache.
Try again Sam.
This comment is utterly preposterous on the face of it. The US has the lowest unemployment rates and highest per capita income of any developed country.
You make the mistake to think that the stats you are reading are actually the same.
The way they are gathered between the US and Europe for example is completly different.
Unofficial it is said the US has an unemployment rate of 10% and that is roughly the same ballpark the EU has.
How about first admitting that you MADE a mistake?
I can shoot someone in the head, using my mouse, about 3 times as fast as they can aim with a joystick.
Maybe, but aiming with the joystick actually isn't all that bad. It might be though that there is a bit of a "aiming assitance" though I played it on heroic lately and I doubt they have it in there.
What I noticed though is that the "dead zone" for the rifle for example is pretty big.... Hard to miss anything.
Yeah I am sure the US is very much aware on how the "real" deal in a war looks like.
Watching American TV Coverage of the war is like going to Disneyland, you get a little bit frightened but they won't show you enough to give you nightmares. Ever saw the pictures from the last Gulf war where the americans bombed the "highway of death"? No? I am not surprised, the american media deemed the pictures as "too violent" and "too disturbing".
Here's a book recommendation for you: Shooting Under Fire: The World of the War Photographer
It actually does show you some things you'll never see in american media. The stories of the photographers are worth a read too.
Compare this to the coverage of other news outlets around the world and tell me again that people can differenciate. They cannot, because they only know the computer and the media makes the real thing appear like the computer game.
Besides, it's not the leaders, it is an independant organization that checks and labels these things. Not only computer games but movies, books, any kind of media.
BTW, the mindset is not forced, if you are 18 or older you can buy the game and any other item on the list, just kids can't (legally) buy it.
If losing a war is what it takes to become wise about the horrors of war and the available pacifistic alternatives, I hope that the US/UK alliance loses (or at least not wins) this war.
Wrong,
They have to win this war but it has to come at a high price. Only then the blood thirst is hopefully stilled.
Look at it this way. The US after 9/11 acted like Terror is something that has never happened to the world before, the fight wars like you can only win them, and even when they lost (Vietnam) the full impact really never came home.
No, the US has to win it because at the end of the loosing in Iraq would be worse, for the US and the world, but it has to come at a high price, one that is felt at home as well.
I'm not overly trusting of our government, but I'll readily take their word over Saddam's.
"In a war, truth is it's first victim." Besides, I don't trust the media that much in general, and you shouldn't either.
From http://www.boortz.com/march20-03.htm
Interresting, but here is a question for you: Iraq is down on it's knees for year, it doesn't seem to have any WMD's (after all if he had it, why wouldn't he use it? It's not like he has anything to loose right now, does he?).
Yet the only country in the region with Nuclear weapons (Israel) is defying over 30 UN resolutions on various topics, they bulldoze refugee camps, use heavy artillery, tanks and attack helicopters in civillian areas, yet the US does nothing, in fact the only thing they do is veto anything that is passed in the security council and giving aid, military and financially. Isn't that very hypocrytical? Who is doing more right now in the region to disturb the peace?
I can't speak for the U.S. government, but frankly I don't care about the world's opinion.
Why this arrogance? Why do you think you don't need to hear what the world has to say? Because they are "unimportant"?
I would like to see the U.S. pull out of the U.N. and tell them to take their headquarters out of New York.
I heard the same thing from quite a few people from the other side of the fence. They would agree with you, why deal with a rogue nation? Why treat them as equals?
I think they've shown themselves to be a bunch of talkers who do not back up their words with meaningful action.
The idea behind the security council always was to find a peaceful solution to conflicts, and yes that includes talking about the topics at hand.
It's ludicrous to me that countries that have long sat in the protection of the U.S. can then sit in judgement of how the U.S. provides that protection.
In a democracy, in a world where apparantly the US is supposed to be the good guys people should be able to question the US in every aspect. And yes, we should be able to decide how we want to be "protected" and we should also be able to decide when we need protection. Or how would you like it when you walk down the street and a police car pulls up and just throws you in the back to "protect" you from something you don't consider a threat? Wouldn't that infright of your rights? Wouldn't you complain?
. This discussion is not meant in any way to justify my opinion of the matter.
No? So you're just trolling?
If people who share my opinion do not speak out though, it would give the impression that the anti-war crowd is larger than it in fact is.
Now you are painting black and white again. Did it ever occure to you that a lot of the people who are now in the "anti-war" movement are so because there is no other way for them to go? That they in essence agree that Saddam isn't a nice guy but that they don't agree with the way this situation is handled?
Let's face it, the current US Administration has absolutly no clue about diplomacy, nor do they have a clue about how the world feels about them.
The "You're either with us or the Terrorist" speech that Bush gave after 9/11 sounded for a lot of people like: "You are either with us or against us.". And that is the problem, a lot of people are on neither side. I am not with the terrorists, but I am most definetly not with the US administration on their crusade either. Considering Bush's statement this automatically makes me one of the bad guys and as such I am against the US. And there lies the problem. By painting black and white the US has managed to alienate 90% of the world population, by not allowing a different opinion they are drifting towards what they claim to fight.
The US stands for "Freedom and Democracy"? No, for most people outside (and quite a few inside the US) the Flag stands for Hypocracy, and it doesn't seem to get any better.
Iraq claims they didn't fire it. I don't think we'll never know who did what.
I'm sure we could find a bunch of lawyers that would say it was illegal. We could find a bunch that would say it's not illegal as well.
The majority of lawyes and law experts will agree that the attack of the US on Iraq was indeed illegal, the Security Council did not approve of it as such.
Here's is one article that discusses the legal implications:
Lawyers Grapple With Attack on Iraq
Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. It states:
There is only one legal basis for the use of force other than self-defense: Security Council directed or authorized use of force to restore or maintain international peace and security pursuant to its responsibilities under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.1 Article 42 of that chapter provides:
More can be found here.
Here is one question for you though: Why do you or the US Government actually care about the worlds opinion? In the last couple of months it seemed quite clear that you don't care, so why now? Why all of the sudden do you feel (as a nation) the need to justify your actions after all?
To the first two points have a look here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
PNAC is a rather conservative Think Tank who has interresting articles titled:
Richard Perl on Iraq
The UN trap?
A Necessary War
And much much more, read it, it is almost a blue print for the current US foreign policy.
"So what?" You might ask, it's a Think Tank they're supposed to do something like that. True but members of that Think Tank include:
Richard Cheney
Richard Perle
Both of them quite clearly influence american policy, wouldn't you agree?
Chirac said that under no circumstances would the use of force be appropriate, and they would oppose any resolution setting a deadline. That eliminated any incentive for Saddam to disarm or truly cooperate with inspectors. France also opposed a stronger inspection regime than the one led by Hans Blix, again weakening inspections.
Yes he did, because it was clear at that point in time that this was the only thing the US wanted: To use force.
The US also careered quite niecly around on what they actually wanted:
First it was inspections, then it was disarmament, then all of the sudden that wasn't good enough either and it was clear they wanted to oust Saddam.
Someone has agendas here and if you read on the PNAC website you'll realize that it is about power. Oil might not be the number one reason for them to go in, but I am sure it is a nice price once they get it.
You are right, you haven't had a family member murdered by someone just interested in "property damage." I'm not going to risk losing a family member to give them the benefit of the doubt.
No I haven't I had someone killed by a drunk driver though, but the reality is (careful I am known to be a cynic) that things like that happen and to think that you can prevent all of it is a nice illusion, you cannot. You can take precautions but to live in fears of what might happen is IMO stupid.
I make sure to put myself in situations that don't warrant me testing my abilities.
Which is the wisest choice and I don't say: "Well walk into a crack house." But I just think that the "I first shoot because thats the only right thing to do." mentality that gets me, but then it seems a populare theme these days, (to bring it back on topic), isn't it?
M.
You seem to be forgetting that in order to stop the U.S. and the rest of the world from de-throning him 12 years ago, Saddam agreed not to amass 'guns' anymore. It's not blackmail when he's expected to honor his part of the bargain.
No Weapons of Mass Destruction, he was still allowed to have his tanks and other "toys". And so far there has been no proof that he has them, now is there?
Also according to several international lawyers, the two resolutions Bush is refering to have expired the moment they kicked Saddam out of Kuweit, which makes the current war an attack on Iraq and as such it is illegal.
I'm not sure why you think I would write that Saddam was a nice guy.
Because in the past in discussions like this people at this point turned around and said something to the effect: "I am sure in your opinion Saddam is a nice guy.".
Yeah, I am a cynic.
M.
Let's agree to disagree. I am currently sitting my place and the door isn't even locked, I am not in the middle of no where but in the middle of downtown Toronto.
I also don't think that if someone who wants to harm you (and breaks in the house out of that reason) is not going to be careful not to alert you or does not try to overpower you right from the start. Usually if someone wants to hurt you they tail you for quite a while to get an understanding of their "pray".
Most other home invasions tend to be on the side of property damage and I think escalating it would be the wrong thing to do, but that's me and obviously we don't see eye to eye.
Carry your gun but I think it just gives you a wrong sense of security. If someone is out to get you chances are they will.
This is true, but if someone breaks into my home they wont see me draw a gun. They will just get shot. I will not intimidate, hesitate, or fire a warning shot. As soon as they are within view, they get shot. I know my house much better than they would, and know how to shoot a gun; likely better than them as well.
If we assume you hit they might not just fall over dead.
As for my aunt, she walked through her front door and the guy didn't want to go to jail so he stabbed her to death. He still got caught, and served 7 years. That's bullshit.
And you in her situation would have been able to defend yourself? Or your wife? Or your kids?
If the robber has to expect that he gets shot at, don't you think he uses the same logic and shoots first?
But I agree, 7 years for murder is not enough, lock 'em up and throw the keys away.
As for my cynicism and lack of value of life, it's backwards. You see, I just value other peoples lives more than someone who is breaking into my home. For instance, my family over their life. I protect my family, and my way of life above all. Especially some junky trying to break into my home.
If your neighbourhood is that bad maybe you should move?
Nothing ever does, but I've been in some pretty tight situations and it has worked out well for me to act proactively.
Minimising risk works, yes, I agree and that is a good tactic. Escalating the situation out of fear what might happen is stupid though.
My aunt was murdered in her home by a burglar.
Under what circumstances? Trying to resist or by playing along? Or just "because"?
My personal experience dictates it's not worth the risk to not act.
The question is how you act. By playing along you can walk away, by drawing a gun you automatically force the other person to protect themselves as well.
By my actions, they will end up dead.
They might, or you will end up dead or both.
I do not play around when safety is concerned, and I'm not about to cripple someone and leave them to sue me.
Charming, [sarcasm]I appreciate it that you value life so much.[/sarcasm]
And there we europeans are accused of being too cynical.
The U.S. gave Saddam every opportunity to first disarm and then to remove himself from power and prevent war. Saddam was interested in doing neither. No amount of U.N. Inspectors was going to make it would have changed a thing.
Yeah, blackmail makes people so much more likely to do what I want them to do.
See it this way: "Give me your gun or I shoot you." Would you give the gun? I doubt it.
No, that doesn't make Saddam a nice guy (as you probably were about to write now) but it makes his reaction understandable.
I am hearing your arguments over and over again, yet in the end I doubt that in a real life situation it will play out the way you expect it to.
Most people who try to rob you just want to do that, they are mostly not interrested in harming you, so why risk it?
No what I was saying is that when the US went into the security council they already knew they wanted the war. They didn't care about any Weapons.
Furthermore they aren't interrested in bringing democracy to the country but have other goals (whatever they might be) and the UN was only considered a "nice to have".
Chirac and others took the US Government by it's word ("We want to find WMD") and tried to find them.
M.
statement by President Jacques Chirac, who said France would veto any resolution authorising war. "Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'," President Chirac said
Yes, after the US administration had made clear that they would push for war no matter what.
So he stood by his convictions.
Personally, if someone breaks into my home, the fear that they would hurt me or my family would prompt me to act first.
And thus escalating the situation and most likely getting hurt.
If you would just play along (maybe trigger a silent alarm) chances are a lot higher that you get away unharmed.