VisorCentral.com - American Interests vs. The World

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- American Interests vs. The World (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=32518)

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 02:44 PM:

I think he means that the U.S only preach the democratic gospel when it suits them. How many undemocratic regimes around are the U.S propping up?

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

[slightly tongue in cheek]
Are you suggesting that the US should force all other countries into democracy?? Our democratic system means "one wo/man, one vote." Do you suggest that we give a vote on the US's actions to non-citizens? Toolkt, are you advocating the US take-over of the world???
[/slightly tongue in cheek]

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 02:48 PM:

The coalition of the billing statement is so true. The handful of countries that are supporting the U.S are doing it for future favours -- not because they really think that Saddam is a threat to anyone.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer

It's actually a fantastic piece.

"What continues to breathe life into Saddam's camp is not the Arab street (which already smells his weakness and mostly wants him gone) but the French street, which is so obsessed with countering U.S. power that it can't acknowledge what is happening right before its eyes: Saddam is finally doing some real disarming, not because the U.N. sent more inspectors to Baghdad, as France demands, but because Mr. Bush sent the 101st Airborne to Kuwait.

But Mr. Bush also has some dangerous blind spots. Every day he asks us to ignore more and more troubling facts, and every day it seems more and more that Mr. Bush has mustered not a coalition of the willing, but rather, as one wag put it, "a coalition of the billing." It is very disturbing that so many of our "allies" have to be bribed or bludgeoned into joining this war."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/05/opinion/05FRIE.html

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 03:00 PM:

Get this straigth. The U.S. is hellbent on replacing Saddam. They said as much this past week when Ari Fleisher said that regime change and disarmament is their goal. Even if Saddam disarms (I still do not think he has anything significant) the U.S. will cook up something.

If was shocked to read in my Globe and Mail newspaper (sorry I searched but could not find the link) that the documents linking Iraq to uranium from Niger (for nuclear weapon production) were forged. Adding to this, much of the evidence that the British government released a few months back were plagiarized from a research study by a California think tank.

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

i stated in some other post, maybe this thread, maybe not, that the major thing everyone seems to disagree on is that when is the "last resort" of force necessary.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 03:08 PM:

BobbyMike.

National goverments are elected to make decisions fopr their citizens. I agree wih that. But the national goverments fall under international law and practices when their decisions affect the citizens of other nations. Essentally you are saying that the U.S government can do anything it wants on behalf of the U.S people any where in the world. This is ludicrous. Heck, Hitler and the Nazis were elected in the 1930s and history have shown what happened when a government decide to do what is in the best interest of their citizens. The U.N and other international institutions were set up as a result of WWII.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

I would think it ridiculous for any country to decide it's national policy based on what the rest of the world thinks it should do. National governments exist to implement policies that it sees as best for it's citizens.

Nations aren't formed to please the rest of the world, they're formed by a group of people to deal with the rest of the world.

They view that any country should base it's decisions only on who will not agree would eventually lead to a world where decisions are never made to be proactive, but countries constantly are just ineffectually reacting to forces (kind of like the UN does).

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-08-2003 04:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Isn't it the official policy of the U.S goverment to make sure that no country will ever match it or exceed militarily or economically?

It's the official policy of every nation on earth to make sure it's better off than it's neighbors. Do you think any nation would act differently (ie. less "arrogantly") or even appear so if it was "number one"? Not only is that niave, history doesn't bear it out.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-08-2003 04:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
The U.S invading a sovereign state without international backing, to effect regime change. Wouldn't you consider this arrogant?

When you say "international backing" you should be saying unanimous or unilateral backing since there are nations that do support the US on this. I consider your ignoring them arrogant.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-08-2003 04:17 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
The coalition of the billing statement is so true. The handful of countries that are supporting the U.S are doing it for future favours -- not because they really think that Saddam is a threat to anyone.

And you really think that all the nations opposing are doing it for high and mighty reasons? France opposes any war in Iraq because they have billions of dollars invested in Iraq. A french company has the rights to the two largest oilfields in Iraq, a french company (Alcatel) handles the telephone infrastructure. Peugeot has business dealings there. And last, but not least, France itself tried very hard to strike a deal in 1991 that would have given Iraq nuclear technology.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 04:37 PM:

Out of the over 200+ countries in the woirld -- How many supports the US's position. Any how many of those supporting them are doing so for favours for favours? See tha allies of the billing statement earlier in the thread.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

When you say "international backing" you should be saying unanimous or unilateral backing since there are nations that do support the US on this. I consider your ignoring them arrogant.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 04:39 PM:

Well France is juswt one country what about the others? Why does the U.S see an immediate need to invade Iraq while playing chicken to North Korea's beligerance (sp)?

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

And you really think that all the nations opposing are doing it for high and mighty reasons? France opposes any war in Iraq because they have billions of dollars invested in Iraq. A french company has the rights to the two largest oilfields in Iraq, a french company (Alcatel) handles the telephone infrastructure. Peugeot has business dealings there. And last, but not least, France itself tried very hard to strike a deal in 1991 that would have given Iraq nuclear technology.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-08-2003 05:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
BobbyMike.

National goverments are elected to make decisions fopr their citizens. I agree wih that. But the national goverments fall under international law and practices when their decisions affect the citizens of other nations. Essentally you are saying that the U.S government can do anything it wants on behalf of the U.S people any where in the world. This is ludicrous. Heck, Hitler and the Nazis were elected in the 1930s and history have shown what happened when a government decide to do what is in the best interest of their citizens. The U.N and other international institutions were set up as a result of WWII.

You bring up an excellent point. What is international law? The UN has no power that it can use without agreement from it's members. If the members can't agree, it's powerless. National governments don't, I repeat myself, don't "fall under international law and it's practices" unless they want to. International law lis just another way of saying, "Play our way or we'll beat you up. Since no one else can beat us up, why should we listen to the UN? We do so because we want to. Just like everybody else does.

You, and the other, pro Iraq debaters keep talking about the US Vs. the world when it's not quite that way. You ignore countries agreeing with the US - or worse insult them and say they're just "lap dogs", or toadying up for later favors. What a load of gall. Yet other on your side of the issue blindly follow a country that is currying favor with a madman for later riches and influence. Get a grip.

If you think that we want a war your nuts. The US has lost more soldiers in the name of "international law" than any other country in the world. We have born the brunt of the cost and the manpower doing so for years. When you talk about "international law" you may mean the UN, but it's usually the US that everybody expects to do the dirty work.

What your seeing is not American "imperialism" or such, but the honest appraisal of a situation that needs mending - one which no one else wants to take up the mantle.

International law gains it's right to govern policy by the strength of the nations behind the law itself. The UN (and it's "international law") cannot force a country like the US, Russia, China, or even France to do anything - nor should it be able to since it's the threat of the strength of the member nations that actually is the lever. That is the real force behind the UN, the military might of the stronger nations.

All nations, including your homeland of Canada, flaunt international law when it suits them. Usually it has to do with mundane issues like trade and fishing rights, sometimes it's things like weapons and invading your neighbors.

Iraq has been blantantly flaunting "international law" for years, mainly because the laws were against it's (Iraqs) vested interests and Iraq knew that they had a most excellent ally, in France, on the UN Security Council, who would plead its case and derail any kind of real attempt at punishment.

Your bringing up Hitler and the Nazis doesn't help your case because it was the League of Nations (an International body and the precursor to the UN) led by a "let's not go to war" movement that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to sieze several smaller countries and gain the natural resources they needed to bring about that whole bloody mess. Millions died needlessly becuase of that feet dragging. The UN was built on the bones of the League of Nations and it is as vacillary and useless. Most of the debate on the floors is spent decrying the evils of US influence.

Is it any wonder that the US doesn't pay attention to the voices of "the little guys" at the UN when said voices are actually just the yammerings of leftist theorists that still think socialism is the way to go?

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-08-2003 05:17 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Out of the over 200+ countries in the woirld -- How many supports the US's position. Any how many of those supporting them are doing so for favours for favours? See tha allies of the billing statement earlier in the thread.

And how many of those 200+ are doing so for favors? We know Germany is Frances closest buddy now that they've decided that the EU is a handy way for them to share the ruling roost in Europe. And we've seen France publicly display the stick when European countries diagreed with them on this matter - so what has happened behind closed doors on that side?

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-08-2003 05:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Well France is juswt one country what about the others? Why does the U.S see an immediate need to invade Iraq while playing chicken to North Korea's beligerance (sp)?

Because while Saddam is nuts he doesn't yet have the capapbility to lob several nukes indiscriminately around while North Korea does. KIM Chong-il has proven to be as disregardful of his own peoples lives as his father was. Push that bugger too hard and if it goes, you'll get your first taste of nuclear war.

We would like to prevent Saddam from being in the same position.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-08-2003 09:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Heck, Hitler and the Nazis were elected in the 1930s and history have shown what happened when a government decide to do what is in the best interest of their citizens.

Interesting example, Hitler. Also, Hitler is a good example of what happens when countries stick their heads in the sand...

quote:
The U.N and other international institutions were set up as a result of WWII.

I believe that the UN came about from League of Nations which was set up after WWI. Lot of good it did in preventing WWII, which (gosh) the United States didn't start.

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-08-2003 09:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Get this straigth. The U.S. is hellbent on replacing Saddam. They said as much this past week when Ari Fleisher said that regime change and disarmament is their goal. Even if Saddam disarms (I still do not think he has anything significant) the U.S. will cook up something.

Do you disagree that without force as a final option, the United Nations is useless?

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-08-2003 10:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
So you think the Iraqi people are not fearful and terrorized by the impending bombs to come in the next few weeks? I am not saying the U.S is a terrorist state. But a country does not have to be a terrorist state to terrorize people.

Scaring people is not the same. YOu know that. A "terrorist" activity is designed to scare people, and disrupt their lives. That is the end. That is not an unfortunate consequence. If the US had a choice, it would press a button and Saddam would vanish with no other consequences. A "terrorist" wouldn't. He (or she) would want to thrust the whole country into disarray. It's a subtle difference to many, but to me it's perfectly clear. Just because the US is going to kill a lot of people does not make it a terrorist nation.

Again, if we could, we'd remove Saddam with no disruption to the daily lives of Iraqis. We have no problem with the citizens. Terrorists have problems not only with leadership but with civilians as well.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-08-2003 10:26 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Isn't it the official policy of the U.S goverment to make sure that no country will ever match it or exceed militarily or economically?

I'd be surprised if you could support that. I have no evidence to the contrary, but I'd still be surprised....

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-08-2003 10:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
much of the evidence that the British government released a few months back were plagiarized from a research study by a California think tank.

Poor journalism, yes. But that doesn't mean it's false. If I were to plagiarize things from a scientific journal, that doesn't mean what I'm saying is necessarily false.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-08-2003 10:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Well France is juswt one country what about the others? Why does the U.S see an immediate need to invade Iraq while playing chicken to North Korea's beligerance (sp)?

Because North Korea is relatively fresh in its outright flaunting of post cold-war international treaty and custom. Iraq has been doing this for over a decade.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-08-2003 10:34 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

Do you disagree that without force as a final option, the United Nations is useless?

You're right. Someone has to go to bat for the UN. And I can think of no better situated country. If this war is just, this is the justification behind it.

Unfortnately this is a bit of a sausage dillema. Everyone likes sausage (peace) but no one wants to be there when it's made (having to fight wars for others).

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:26 AM:

Better off than one's neighbour is one issue -- Hegemony is another issue altogether.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

It's the official policy of every nation on earth to make sure it's better off than it's neighbors. Do you think any nation would act differently (ie. less "arrogantly") or even appear so if it was "number one"? Not only is that niave, history doesn't bear it out.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM.

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page