RE: Pakistan border and US forces

RE: Pakistan border and US forces (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sanity -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 7:19:47 AM)
Keep on repeating that... quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver When someone replies with a post like that, they know they have lost the argument.[8\|]

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 7:37:25 AM)
No, please don't. XI

philosophy -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 7:52:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight I think this is the point where someone always says that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." What a bullshit statement. I am still solidly of the belief that Britain needs to withdraw from Ireland. The age of Empire is supposed to be over, after all. BUT ....I have never been supportive of IRA bombings because bombs do not discriminate between soldiers and babies. I have given money to help victims of those bombings and would gladly do so again. As for American support of the IRA, not much I can support or dispute. If you were in the right Irish neighborhood, I'm sure it happened. In others, it didn't. Like anything else, out of sight out of mind for most of the world. ..i agree with all of this. The reason i brought up this issue was to point out that if the UK applied this Bush Doctrine in the 70's and 80's then they'd have sent the SAS into the USA, just as the US military is sending people into Pakistan. Slaveboyforyou can go on suggesting this is an apples and oranges comparison but it really isn't. To exactly the same extent that Pakistan is now allowing terrorists to operate incountry, so did the US in the 70's and 80's. So, back to the OP. Does the US have a right to conduct unilateral military actions in another sovereign nation? Does any country? i'd argue that this is getting dangerously close to the old canard, might makes right. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it ought to be done.

bipolarber -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 8:27:55 AM)
The "Bush Doctrine" (which I'm sure will be remembered right up there with Germany's "elbow room" manifesto) states that, if we have reason to believe there are terrorists in a particular country, we don't need to aknowledge their boarders. We just run in and strike pre-emptively. And people wonder why our name has turned to shit in the eyes of the rest of the world?

Scoollink -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 8:42:01 AM)
People who don't understand the so called "Bush Doctrine(s)" should really educate themelf before posting something. There are (4) so called "Bush Doctorine(s)" A conservative writer named Charles Krauthammer first coined the phrase "Bush Doctorine" in Decmeber 2001 after the Uinted States action in Afghan. Following Bush's Sate of the Union Speech in Jan. 2002 Krauthammer labled the 2nd "Bush Doctorine" DUring his "interview" w/ Pailn Charles Gibson was hoping for a "GOCHTA!" moment when he seemingly tested Palin's ability to name "the Bush Doctorine" as though Presidnet Bush sat down and wrote out a set policy. Gibson preyed on and appealed to the foolish and uniformed viewers who watched the interview and responded to Gibson's belittling behavior toward Palin rahter than understanding what a fool Gibson is.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 8:49:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou Arab nationalism and Wahhabism (the real root of modern Islamic extremism.) started under the Ottoman Empire, which I wouldn't call a Western country. Wahhabism is the brand of Islam that controls Saudia Arabia now, and they are the very same government that invited us in during the First Gulf War. It's one of the major gripes of Al Qaida and other affiliated extremist groups. So I wouldn't exactly call that our fault. Our support of Israel is their other major gripe. Well, we have the 2nd largest Jewish population in the world. Israel is our ally, and that isn't going to stop. We shouldn't be told by extremists who we can and can't support. You said it yourself slaveboy, Arab nationalism started when the Arabs were subjugated, they remained subjugated under the western chattle after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and even when they got nominal independence the west interfered, double dealed, divided and rules to get access to Arab oil resources. If you read the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the west doesn't come out of that smelling of roses either and it was the Israeli army, by admission of their own soldier's testaments, that they purposely murdered Arab women and children to drive out the rest of the Arab population and ethnically cleanse the new state of Israel. But no one interested in peace is calling for the destruction of Israel, they are calling for the USA to be a honest broker and support the moderates of both sides, not bank roll Israel while supporting its extremists and turning a blind eye to Israeli state terrorism. A good alie of Israel would be one that is interested in peace but the policies of the US give the impression it doesn't want peace in the region, which further increases Arab frustration, lose of faith in any peace process and leads to increased terrorism in the region.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:10:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy The reason i brought up this issue was to point out that if the UK applied this Bush Doctrine in the 70's and 80's then they'd have sent the SAS into the USA, just as the US military is sending people into Pakistan. Slaveboyforyou can go on suggesting this is an apples and oranges comparison but it really isn't. To exactly the same extent that Pakistan is now allowing terrorists to operate incountry, so did the US in the 70's and 80's. So, back to the OP. Does the US have a right to conduct unilateral military actions in another sovereign nation? Does any country? i'd argue that this is getting dangerously close to the old canard, might makes right. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it ought to be done. Does the US have a right to conduct unilateral military actions in another sovereign nation? Yes. Does any country? No. i'd argue that this is getting dangerously close to the old canard, might makes right. Of course it is. It became an "old canard" because it is basically true. It has only been in the last century that this right wasn't automatically assumed (primarily since the US became the major power on the international scene after WWII). I think the reason that you and others seem to believe that it would be any other way is because there is often a confusion between concepts of individual morality and concepts of international "rights" and the international political process. Nations only have "rights" that they can enforce by force of arms. There is no one, and no organization that "gives" a nation rights. There is no inherent, "god given rights" that a nation has in the world, only "rights" that a country can claim, and hold against all comers. Firm

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:13:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I think the reason that you and others seem to believe that it would be any other way is because there is often a confusion between concepts of individual morality and concepts of international "rights" and the international political process. Nations only have "rights" that they can enforce by force of arms. There is no one, and no organization that "gives" a nation rights. There is no inherent, "god given rights" that a nation has in the world, only "rights" that a country can claim, and hold against all comers. Firm Right, the Arab freedom fighters (purposefully provocative to make a point), were completely within their rights to fly into the WTC because the USA didn't have the means to stop them? If it is perfectly OK for states to do what they like, it is perfectly OK for freedom fighters to do what they like. After all, according to Bush, America stands for civilized values.

Raechard -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:15:22 AM)
Does Russia have rights then?[;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:16:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard Does Russia have rights then?[;)] Nice one.

kittinSol -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:21:28 AM)
Apparently, America stands for the law of the strongest... until it's overtaken by China, or India. Then we'll see how many of these 'we can, because we're the biggest' chest thumping advocates claim that there is no such thing as international law and that it's okay to be invaded, and have your international borders fiddled with by other countries [8D].

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:23:29 AM)
If the west stood for international law and shed its hypocrisy when international law was inconvenient it would have moral authority even in countries that wish to flout international law. At the moment, in foreign policy, the west is no better than the dictators and terrorists it condemns.

Raechard -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:31:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard Does Russia have rights then?[;)] Nice one. This all reminds me of the saying 'familiarity breeds contempt', during the cold war we had the threat of mutual destruction which kept everyone in line now one side is gambling on the other not pressing the button which is dangerous for all of us. Pakistan is a nuclear power, how many people in the US administration had that in mind when they started their illicit war across the border? Maybe it is a sub standard nuclear power but give a sympathiser a nuke and who knows what comes next.

Thadius -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:32:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber The "Bush Doctrine" (which I'm sure will be remembered right up there with Germany's "elbow room" manifesto) states that, if we have reason to believe there are terrorists in a particular country, we don't need to aknowledge their boarders. We just run in and strike pre-emptively. And people wonder why our name has turned to shit in the eyes of the rest of the world? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk Hmmm... The plot thickens. Say it ain't so.

philosophy -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:33:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Does the US have a right to conduct unilateral military actions in another sovereign nation? Yes. Does any country? No. ...thanks for the forthright reply Firm, though i must admit to being a little surprised. You have often argued on these fora for issues to be judged on moral/ethical grounds. Abortion being a good example. You've even given us the old adage that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You appear to be suggesting that justice does not apply to US foreign policy. That the rule of law, which makes a society civilised, can be forgone outside US borders. If i accept your apparent logic, what would prevent the USA invading Canada to gain control over the enormous natural resources that exist there? What possible reason would any other country in the world have to trust the US governments word? This is like the schoolyard bully who takes smaller kids lunch money because he can. There will inevitably come a time when the bully needs help or support.......and that help or support wont be there. Just because, for most of the last few centuries, countries have held to the might makes right argument doesn't mean it is correct. As a planet, as a community of nations we have to grow up. Which means that for countries, as for individuals, we have to accept that certain actions may be possible but they are just plain wrong.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:46:22 AM)
quote: You said it yourself slaveboy, Arab nationalism started when the Arabs were subjugated, they remained subjugated under the western chattle after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and even when they got nominal independence the west interfered, double dealed, divided and rules to get access to Arab oil resources. So what? It's not a new thing for one group of people to use it's power over another group of people. Arabs along the Barbary coast were raiding the European coastline for centuries. The estimates of how many Europeans were kidnapped and sold into slavery are in the many millions. We can go back and forth over the history of the Middle East all day long. It doesn't change what's going on today. We can't exactly hop in a time machine and go back and tell our ancestors to rethink their actions. quote: But no one interested in peace is calling for the destruction of Israel Hamas has said exactly that. Iran has said exactly that. quote: they are calling for the USA to be a honest broker and support the moderates of both sides, not bank roll Israel while supporting its extremists and turning a blind eye to Israeli state terrorism. We have gone out of our way to broker peace with both sides. Yitzhak Rabin made enormous concessions to the Palestinians and it still wasn't good enough. The Arab countries don't offer any help. You have millions of Palestinian refugees that Arab countries refuse to take in. Why the hell should it be our sole responsibility to fix things for these people? quote: A good alie of Israel would be one that is interested in peace but the policies of the US give the impression it doesn't want peace in the region, which further increases Arab frustration, lose of faith in any peace process and leads to increased terrorism in the region. The Arab world isn't interested in making peace with Israel, and it never has been.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:50:31 AM)
philo, You are still making the same error in understanding that I pointed out in my original post, to wit: "Morality" and "rights" are individual moral concepts, while "international rights" are not. We use the same words for both ("rights") but they are not the same thing at all. Individual morality and concepts can influence international rights (and perhaps should), but to confuse the two ensures conflicts in understanding such as seen in this thread, and in much discussion of international politics. All society is based on the use of force, just as all international relations are. It is currently nation-states that systematize and limit the use of force within a society which allow our particular concepts of "individual rights" as inalienable human rights to exist. There is no such "higher authority" to do the same thing to nation-states, other than more powerful nation-states. The US has attempted to grow an international framework based on moderating much of the inherent reliance of naked power as the standard on which to judge international state actions, to the point that many forget that that consensus is based on the naked might of the Western-centric system that we planned and emplaced after WWII. The particular incident under discussion (cross border ops into Pakistan) is simply an exposure of the fact that in areas in which a nation-state believes it's national interest out weigh the preferred principle, it will revert to the basics of international relations: might makes right. I might prefer otherwise, but it is what it is. Firm

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 9:55:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: You said it yourself slaveboy, Arab nationalism started when the Arabs were subjugated, they remained subjugated under the western chattle after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and even when they got nominal independence the west interfered, double dealed, divided and rules to get access to Arab oil resources. So what? It's not a new thing for one group of people to use it's power over another group of people. Arabs along the Barbary coast were raiding the European coastline for centuries. The estimates of how many Europeans were kidnapped and sold into slavery are in the many millions. We can go back and forth over the history of the Middle East all day long. It doesn't change what's going on today. We can't exactly hop in a time machine and go back and tell our ancestors to rethink their actions. We live in the 21st century. I have seen many people on these threads say blacks should get over it when they bring up slavery. Europe has got over white slavery. Its a pity America hasn't since it has nothing to do with them. quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: But no one interested in peace is calling for the destruction of Israel Hamas has said exactly that. Iran has said exactly that. Actually Hamas called for peace talks when they were first elected, the USA rejected them out of hand, which gave Israel the nod to reject them. quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: they are calling for the USA to be a honest broker and support the moderates of both sides, not bank roll Israel while supporting its extremists and turning a blind eye to Israeli state terrorism. We have gone out of our way to broker peace with both sides. Yitzhak Rabin made enormous concessions to the Palestinians and it still wasn't good enough. The Arab countries don't offer any help. You have millions of Palestinian refugees that Arab countries refuse to take in. Why the hell should it be our sole responsibility to fix things for these people? Read what Rabin was offering, he was offering a form of Indian reservation like the US gave the American natives. quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: A good alie of Israel would be one that is interested in peace but the policies of the US give the impression it doesn't want peace in the region, which further increases Arab frustration, lose of faith in any peace process and leads to increased terrorism in the region. The Arab world isn't interested in making peace with Israel, and it never has been. Obviously America hasn't been listening for the last twenty years.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 10:00:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY philo, You are still making the same error in understanding that I pointed out in my original post, to wit: "Morality" and "rights" are individual moral concepts, while "international rights" are not. Only because it has been decided by those in power it is convenient. Actually, individuals have rights because the collective demands rights for the individual, they can equally demand that nations should also have rights too.

popeye1250 -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/17/2008 10:06:22 AM)
So, many of us seem to be saying that safe and secure borders should be respected and enforced, correct? I know KittinSol, agrees that "laws should be enforced".

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875