In Part I I tried to advance some arguments as to why the Iraq war is so hated. Here are a few more. Neither that post nor this one is meant to be exhaustive.
One of the main justifications for the war was that Iraq had violated the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire and the UN inspections. But the war was also widely–and rightly–seen as an attempt to begin to change the face of the Middle East. For that reason, the fear exists that this war will just be the first in a long series of wars in the region, a sort of “where will it all end?” apprehension. This apprehension is also, I believe, behind some of the otherwise almost incomprehensible defense of Iran’s leadership by segments of the antiwar contingent.
To many liberals and those on the left who never accepted that Saddam’s violations of the ceasefire and inspections were a large part of what led to the US decision to go to war (”it’s all for oil, it’s racism, it’s imperialism”), the decision to go to war with Iraq seemed purely arbitrary. Therefore the fear was that nothing would stop this administration from attacking country after country in that region.
Perhaps that’s even part of what’s behind the seemingly inexplicable need of some on the left to have the whole enterprise fail. Think about it: if it succeeds, then what’s to stop those evil crazed neocons from doing it again and again in the region? Because of course, we all know that neocons have no sense of nuance, no knowledge of the differences between countries, nor of why a possible solution for one is not necessarily the right approach to another.
Another aspect of this war that is hard to accept–not just the Iraq war, but the larger “war on terrorism” or “war on Islamic jihadism” or whatever term one wishes to use for it–is that it does most definitely have religious overtones, although those religious overtones are actually those of the enemy. Our own religious battles in the West are for the most part of the “cold” variety, although our history is one of lengthy “hot” wars of a religious nature. But to a great degree we’ve put all of that behind us.
Now it rears its ugly head in a way that seems positively medieval. But the fact is that we are fighting an enemy with a medieval/religious mindset and access to modern weapons, and one who is trying to gain access to the most modern of weapons–nuclear ones–even as we speak. It’s a lethal combination, and very hard to believe and accept, especially if one is accustomed to thinking in PC terms. And, strangely enough, when all this became clearer on 9/11, we happened to have had a President in office who takes his own religion, Christianity, usually seriously, and is unashamed to state that fact.
This whole business of a war that is at least partly religious in nature (if only because the enemy wills it to be so) is assuredly not what most of us expected for the beginning of the 21st century. I remember, when I first started reading blogs, coming across the site of an Australian blogger (now defunct; wish I could remember his name!) who wrote a funny piece on that very subject. The gist of it was that the whole thing can be explained by a mixup in time: the numbers of the years got reversed, and instead of it being 2001 it was actually the year 1200.
Sometimes it feels that way; the sense of dislocation can be profound. Hard to accept the fact of an enemy with a medieval mindset wedded with modern technology. Much better, and far more reassuring, to think that those who are aware of the threat and who want to do something different about it are nuts. Because who would want to recognize that we’re in a long struggle against an unusually implacable and rage-filled enemy?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Facts have never mattered to me, only principles.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
I’m not fixated on the UK. You are. Primarily because it is one of the few developed world countries you can point to with higher overall crime rates.
I have repeatedly put this in context for you. Homicide and Prison population rates are hundreds of % higher per capita in the US than in the UK, or indeed any other developed country in the world. I give you that differing systems and cultures can result in trends that are hard to match up, but not by hundreds percent in two major categories, across the entire developed world. That strains credulity, it’s a wonder you can swallow such nonsense yourself.
The heady mix of your hyper nationalism and these rather banal factoids, has generated a surprising blizzard of torturous reasoning, desperate refutation and twisted logic.
Entertaining, but all your blather on the subject doesn’t get you around the facts. It just highlights how completely your hyper nationalism has degraded your critical thinking. Sad really.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
I never, at any point in this thread denied that the UK had a marginally higher crime rate than the US. I disputed the contention that crime has not been falling in the UK.
As BMC unintentionally stated, his point wasn’t about the UK but about how the crime rates are higher in America than other nations.
However you are still stuck with higher homicide rates and prison populations (compared to developed countries), regardless of how disingenously you spin it.
Thus the only refutation he can provide, is that the UK’s crime rates are lower, yet they are still higher than the US. As the statistics prove, or as much as BMC’s stats can prove, the UK trades daily terrorism through burglaries, assaults, and being an assault victim to the US trading in less daily terrorism for more people being murdered because they didn’t feel the need to learn self-defense. It is either that, or people are being killed because they can fight back, and killing them is the only way not to be killed yourselves. When places like Britain disarm their population, the criminals have no need to kill anyone body, because nobody will try and stop them and nobody will fight back. Thus the people of Britain become the terrorized slave population of a mob like organization where here in the US, it is more like the Wild West where people fight it out based upon individualism.
If people will recall, many people complain that the US is trading their civil rights for security. Disarming citizens so that the murders go down while the property rights of people and the safety of their citizens are violated, seems not to be noticed as an inconsistency. BMC said it himself, he’d rather be assaulted with a baseball bat or a hand to hand weapon, than to be killed by a firearm. The logic that it is the US willing to give up our civil rights for security, is an attempt to project the world’s lack of self-confidence and liberty upon the United States. It is an unfortunate byproduct of making the people of the West into sheep, they will always complain about animals with teeth.
As BMC’s behavior proves, they really can’t tolerate a position dynamically different from their own without throwing things like “disengenous lies, only friend in the world” into the mix to supplement their lack of reasoning and logic skills. They have to make things personal, because it is personal to them that they are the ones sacrificing their liberty for security while the US is not.
The difference is simple. While I talk about what people like BMC does and why they are wrong, BMC talks about who and what people like me are. They shift the subject to who you are, and not what you believe. They do it unconsciously, so they will always deny it. As BMC will deny it, because he truly cannot see the logic problems with his own arguments.
It is quite a lot more complex than “America has money therefore can do what it wants”. The most notable thing I was speaking of was psychology. The ability to visualize a scenario, and predict with accuracy what both sides would do and WHY they would do it.
As we can see, any attempts to steer it from being about “America and Americans” lands with a return about “disengenous” spinning.
As a last note, I just provided the statistics and their titles and how I interpreted them. BMC sees this as an attack on some statement of his about the UK’s crime rate lowering. In most cases, these statistics benefit other people than BMC, and knee jerk reactionary thinking is not a good idea.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
The numbers don’t lie, but people do make mistakes when they interpret them.
I never, at any point in this thread denied that the UK had a marginally higher crime rate than the US. I disputed the contention that crime has not been falling in the UK.
However, I do dispute your recent efforts to massage the gap to make it appear so much larger than it actually is. Not a terribly fair way to treat your only real friend in the world:-)
That said, the UK is practically the only country in the developed world that comes even close to US overall crime rates.
You note that the US has more convictions and you keep people in prison longer. Jesus you’re a genuis.
Did imagine the prison population were asexually reproducing:-)? You truly have become the master of stating the bland and obvious.
Wood for the trees alert: It didn’t occur to you that higher convictions and longer prison sentences are bad things? Especially given the US still has higher homicide rates and crimes rates when compared to almost any developed country?
No doubt you can find some categories of crime the US does better in than … someone.
However you are still stuck with higher homicide rates and prison populations (compared to developed countries), regardless of how disingenously you spin it.
You silly, silly man.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass
US has 2.2 million. Britain has 2.7 million once you adjust for the cer capital rate, in assaults.
So that 6% bmc talks about is half a million more assault victims in terms of actual comparison between the US and Britain. And the US has far more big cities than Britain, so the US should statistically have more assaults than Britain. This is of course, not even including how many assaults go unreported in Britain because the police won’t do anything about them.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_vic
2.8% of Britain is an assault victim.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bel_in_pol_eff
Britain has 15% less people believing in police efficiency than the US, and the US leads the pack.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_car_the
US has 1.1 million car thefts.
GB has 2.0 million once you multiply GB”s pop by 6, to equal the US’s.
The US has a lot more cars than GB, I notice. Yet the rate is higher in GB than it is in the US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_con
#1 Egypt 3,576,010
#2 United Kingdom 1,398,270
That is how many are convicted. That is a lot of convictions, because the US would have to have 8 times 1.3 million to equal those convictions, which would put us AHEAD of Egypt, a police state.
Here is the perception of safety towards home invasion.
#4 United States 78%
#5 Denmark 75%
#6 Norway 68%
#7 Canada 66%
#8 Switzerland 64%
#9 Netherlands 62%
#10 United Kingdom 58%
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_per_of_saf_bur
Sentencing lengths.
#16 United States 29
#17 Portugal 26
#18 South Africa 26
#19 Lithuania 25
#20 Papua New Guinea 24
#21 Zimbabwe 24
#22 United Kingdom 15
could it be that the US has more people in jail because we keep them there in jail instead of releasing them?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_sen_len
#1 Poland 1.8%
#2 Italy 1.3%
#3 Australia 1.2%
#4 United Kingdom 1.2%
#5 Slovenia 1.1%
#6 Portugal 1.1%
#7 France 1.1%
#8 Belgium 1%
#9 Canada 0.9%
#10 Sweden 0.9%
#11 Netherlands 0.8%
#12 New Zealand 0.7%
#13 Switzerland 0.7%
#14 Denmark 0.7%
#15 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.7%
#16 Finland 0.6%
#17 United States 0.6%
Robbery victims up above.
These are the burglary victims below.
#1 United States 2,099,700
#2 United Kingdom 836,027
Adjusted by pop, UK is 5 million.
I’m a lot better at statistics because I can actually understand what they are telling me, instead of just finding in them what I want. The numbers don’t lie, but people do make mistakes when they interpret them.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
The US has a gang problem because the fake liberal Democrats control the inner cities, and they are what is keeping the black folks down. Ironic, that the black folks keep voting Democrat to “spite the white man” when who they are voting for is the man.
France has a French problem because their gang problem is everywhere, even if lcoated in French slums, because of the French welfare and socialized system.
It is quite a lot more complex than “America has money therefore can do what it wants”. The most notable thing I was speaking of was psychology. The ability to visualize a scenario, and predict with accuracy what both sides would do and WHY they would do it.
My observations and predictions of what the US would do and the UN nations would do, is described by BMC as the US having money therefore they are allowed to do anything. Which is obviously not the point of my psychology based predictions and observations.
In terms of France, Europe, and the US. We have the curious story the statistics tell us, with all the qualifiers and addendums that everyone who has studied statistics knows about ahead of time without having it spelled out to them, and then we have the actual rioting and violence in Europe and France compared to the US.
So what the statistics purpotedly tell us, is somehow very different from the actual level of incitement and violence.
When people are willing to be terrorized in their homes, on a daily basis, rather than to risk being killed by a gun or using a gun to defend themselves, we start to see a decadent spiral into the Dark Ages basically where nobles protected the defenseless peasants and an aristocracy is thus created. That is a bad idea.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
The main reason (In my opinion) that the US has such a higher rate of homocide, and a gang problem is that our police don’t have the kind of police powers that they do in Europe- not even close, but that’s the price we pay for being more free.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Babbin’s latest
Just for you Ymar
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
How do tyrants maintain power when they oppress their people? Your statement is so patently false
“This is just black/white Good/Bad nonsense. History is full to overflowing with examples of what I’m talking about.
The French revolution, the Russian revolution, Slave rebellions in the Roman Empire, heck even in the Confederacy. Please, don’t be obtuse.
If you keep people in grinding poverty it often pisses them off. Will that cover it? Sheese.” History kindergarten.
No it’s not that simple. History if full of many more periods of long term oppression of the underclass. Revolution is the exception, and in fact, often required outside intervention to pull it off (even ours- from Spain and the French no less). The problem here is that you see it as “black/white”, “History Kindergarten”, and I see it as complex and major events as being the result of a confluence of circumstances and causes…
This line you threw in was particularly interesting-
“heck even in the Confederacy.”
The poor and oppressed in the confederacy (black slaves) weren’t the ones doing the revolting, were they?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“Have you ever been out of the US? We don’t have gangs roaming the streets here:-)”
Have you been to Paris lately?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
How am I going to read Babbin’s latest when I don’t know where the link is?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
How do tyrants maintain power when they oppress their people? Your statement is so patently false
This is just black/white Good/Bad nonsense. History is full to overflowing with examples of what I’m talking about.
The French revolution, the Russian revolution, Slave rebellions in the Roman Empire, heck even in the Confederacy. Please, don’t be obtuse.
If you keep people in grinding poverty it often pisses them off. Will that cover it? Sheese. History kindergarten.
Ymarsakar, your entire post boils down to “we have more money, so we should do what we like”. I disagree with that basic position, so we have, I think an irreconcilable difference there:-(
you admit your quote on “defeat” was misplaced
No I do not. The Soviets where defeated but not by Allah and Co. Hence “defeat”.
A more lawful society puts their criminals in jail and keeps them there.
Sure, this is a problem if we are talking about the US and say, Colombia. However it is very hard to explain away when comparing the US to Germany, Ireland, Sweden or any other minority world country.
Have you ever been out of the US? We don’t have gangs roaming the streets here:-)
There may be some play in the system but not hundreds of %, that indicates at least some minor societal dysfunction.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
It is rather bizarre, that it should fall to an Irishman to defend the UK against your slander.
Nonetheless here I am:-)
The stats you quote are from an article written in 2002.
Here is a link showing total incidents of crime in the UK since 1981 to 2005. These statistics are hot off the press direct from the people who produce them.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page54.asp
As you can see, crime has been falling steadily since 1993, about 4 years before Blair took office.
So you appear to be wrong again, with regard to the increase in crime. Which rather puts your theory about EU human rights legislation to bed. But you were certainly correct about the higher incidents of crime in the UK, on that point I surrender.
Although, you might have saved yourself the trouble of looking up the article. It’s right there in the stats posted by moi from nation master:-)
#6 United Kingdom 85.5517 per 1,000 people
#7 Montserrat 80.3982 per 1,000 people
#8 United States 80.0645 per 1,000 people
More neck and neck though … 5 incidents of crime per 1000 in the difference? Plus there is the homicide rate.
So, sure in the UK its 6% more likely that I’ll get mugged, but in the US it’s 300% more likely that I’d be murdered. I know which I’d prefer:-) Plus, you’ve got that embarrasing prison population rate, strictly speaking the US should be a crime free paradise based on that alone:-)
Sorry, Mary. You loose this round comprehensivley.
Revolutions emerge from the middle class, not the poverty stricken.
All sorts of people participate in revolutions, for all kinds of reasons. The primary umbrella driver is injustice, perceived or real.
Regardless of who foments the revolution, if you have a seething underclass, they supply the muscle. C’mon lets not quibble over the obvious stuff.
So to summarise.
EU crimes are mostly lower than the US, although Finland and the UK are higher overall.
Homicides are roughly 300%, and Prison populations are roughly 600% higher in the US than in the EU.
Which brings me back to my point. The namby, pamby approach has it’s benefits. We don’t have to spend all that money on prisons for a start.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Ymar, you better read Jed Babbin’s latest…
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“These people, if you read the literature, consider that “Allah” is the one responsible for ensuring the defeat of the Soviets. You and I, and lets face it, probably Mr. O. himself, know that it was primarily American support, and especially those handy stingers that defeated the Soviets. It had little or nothing to do with Allah.”
Yes, so a) you admit your quote on “defeat” was misplaced, and b) They think everything is due to Allah, one way or another, anyway- so what? When we defeat them, they’ll have to credit that to Allah as well, won’t that be nice. You’ll get it eventually, Inshallah.
“People who are sick, poverty stricken and downtrodden eventually turn on their masters, or whomever happens to be handy.”
Why then isn’t Bangladesh a writhing morass of violence and civil war? In the 70’s it was the better off Pakistani’s that were the antagonists… How do you explain that? Why don’t the desperately poor in Brazil or Mexico revolt against the governments that are corruptly holding power in the upper classes and maintaining a stratified society? How do tyrants maintain power when they oppress their people? Your statement is so patently false, yet you seem to actually believe it… sigh.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Just to clarify. The USN is larger than the combined tonnages of the next Seven largest navies.
So even if you add up Japan, China, indian, Britain, and etc, it doesn’t even equal the USN in terms of tonnage. We’re not even talking about technology or experience yet. Which is probably 1 or 2 orders greater than other nations.
China would go bankrupt if they tried to match American defense spending. China has like what, somewhere between 1/10 or 1/5th the GDP of America?
So in order to match our 4% Defense spending, they would have to spend either 40% GDP per year or 20% GDP per year. For like how many years it takes to go par with us. This is as we are also spending, so if China wants to reach instant parity with the US, they would go bankrupt cause we’ve been spending 4 to 6% GDP for awhile now, while China has only begun. So there’s like a learning curve first.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
It is true that the US, could do what they liked. However, if having signed up to clear cut structures the US then reneged on them, that would generate a lot of deserved negative attention.
There are two things I think bears focusing on. One, if the US simply opts out of the UN if nations in the UN expects too much out of the UN and doesn’t give it back. If it is supposed to be based upon consent and mutual benefit, then if the US gives out 100 billion in aid and gets like 500 million back, the US will go somewhere else.
Second, the scenario you brought up consists of the US benefiting from the UN and then not agreeing to abide by a vote or consensual agreement.
The way I see it, if the other nations do not “arm up” then the US is not going to acrue mutual benefit from the arrangement. If the other nations do not spend as much on Defense as the US does, then the US has no reason not to disobey UN votes. People obey the law because they fear violating the law, the cops are going to come after them and all that. Who is going to come after the US if the US violates the UN votes? Nobody, because everyone is too busy disarming and not contributing their fair share to the defense equation.
Those above reasons are why, if you want the US to obey UN votes and stay in the UN, other nations need to armup to an equal level to the US once you lump them together. Currently, the US Navy is larger than the “next” 7th largest navies. And this is only a per ton basis, not a technological compensated difference. The level of difference between the USAF and the US Army is even larger given the lack of quality and quantity in the rest of the world’s forces.
China is trying to, but they can barely get one carrier working.
The people to target are the ones breaking the agreed laws, not millions of innocent people.
That is just the thing though. People in the US won’t give up Constitutional protections over US citizens, including the President. The people will themselves not cooperate because they don’t want the UN deciding their politician’s fate, since the people prefer to do that themselves. If the people don’t cooperate, then you are going to run into resistance if you try to enforce grabbing politicians and leaders. The UN might not declare war on the US, but the US most definitely will declare war on the US for grabbing US citizens when it becomes inconsistent with American law. This is the argument behind the World Court for example.
By the way Ymarsakar, thanks for introducing me to “The Futurists” Blog.
Your welcome, I myself only came across it recently because of a chance commentator.
In conclusion, i can’t agree on the premise that the principles are correct. The principles do not take into account the role of the military and the interest of human beings. For example, I do believe you can get people and nations to disarm. But you have to give them guarantees, that if someone should attack them, that they will be protected. It is about trust. Do they trust the UN to always vote their way if they are attacked? No, that is as you say, not how it will work. So people will not give up their armies either because the UN will have no army or will never be guaranteed to use it if they did have an army.
The way the world is set up right now, the US has eseveral mutual defense deals with nations like Poland, Japan, NATO, Taiwan, and etc. The US guarantees that if these nations are attacked or invaded, that the US will respond with the penultimate in military force, which outmatches any other nation as well as the next 7th largest nations combined together. Even for little nations like Kuwaitt that didn’t have such an agreement because they either could not trust us or thought it wasn’t needed, benefited from American protection when Saddam invaded.
People and nations have weapons and armies for two reasons. To use it to conquer others and take what is not theirs. Or to protect themselves from people who conquer others and take what is not theirs. Most people are the latter, but the former pops up every now and again. People will not disarm if they feel threatened and isn’t given a trusted guarantee of protection.
The UN, as you described, would not be capable of giving that guarantee of protection. To translate the UN into some kind of US federal system, requires a federal army and a federal law which supercedes ALL local laws. Otherwise there is NO guarantee that the federal government will uniformly and consistently enforce mutually agreed upon rules and laws.
By actual orders of magnitude, stop a moment and think about that.
I’ve responded to this from other people in past. Basically, a more lawful and consistent society can have more crime statistics because the more chaotic and crime based societies don’t actually have people willing to trust in the police and report the crimes. Cause basically either the police is corrupt or they won’t do anything, therefore the crime statistics for chaotic countries may actually be LESS than more orderly societies that record everything.
This is noticed in Britain, which has many many times the home breakins and assault crimes than the US. And not only that, but the people in Britain don’t report their crimes because the police don’t do anything to arrest the criminals (so long as they don’t kill anyone or use a gun that is). So you have more assaults and breaks in in Britain, yet more people are unwilling to report crime.
The argument for why the US has more criminals in jail is easy to explain, related to the above xplanation. A more lawful society puts their criminals in jail and keeps them there. A more chaotic environment, like Russian, can have people bribed to get out of jail. Another reason why the US has more criminals in jail compared to say Britain, is because the US has a lot of very large urban cities. Crime in urban cities are grossly greater than an equal number of populated small towns. A 5 million city population produces more crime than 500,000 towns with 10 people in each of those towns. Why? Because when people know each other, criminals know that they will get caught and be shamed. There’s nowhere to hide out, unlike the criminal enclaves in big cities.
Besides, the stats are missing Britain, and that is a big problem if you are using it to compare US to Europe crime problems.
Good example is.
#95 France 95 per 100,000 people
With the French riots going on, do you perhaps think that the lack of big arrests actually contribute to more crime instead of decreasing it?
The strategy in a nutshell in Iraq, is better characterized as “getting them to fight their own wars themselves”. Meaning, terroism is an Arab problem and Arabs should be best suited to solve it. But taht means Arabs have to kill Arabs, and so we give them something to fight for (liberty) and the terroists a reason to kill other Arabs (liberty equals no shariah).
Thus we offer the Iraqis American power, support, and money in return for the Iraqis fighting a proxy warfare against both their enemies and ours. It is a mutual benefit deal, that the UN you would create BMC, would have many such deals like this.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
People who are sick, poverty stricken and downtrodden eventually turn on their masters, or whomever happens to be handy.
No they don’t. People were sick, poverty stricken and downtrodden for hundreds of years under the guidance of monarchies and the Catholic Church, and they did squat to change things. Revolutions emerge from the middle class, not the poverty stricken.
Criminals prey on the weak. If no one protects people, and if they’re not allowed to protect themselves, crime increases, as is has in Britain and all over Europe. Via the Telegraph:
England has worst crime rate in world
England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world’s leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.
The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world’s 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.
During the period 1998-2000, Britain went from fifth to fourth worst in the world league table.
More at Reason and the American Spectator
Most blame the crime wave, not on the lack of available guns (New York has strict gun control laws, low crime), but on the EU inpired Human Rights legislation.
This sounds just like the idea you’re proposing. I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but it doesn’t work.
It never did work. Really. Don’t they teach pragmatism over there?
However, this is a distraction. The justification for going to war in Iraq was not about saving Iraqi lives. It was about sacrificing Iraqi lives to save American lives. Fight them over there etc.
No, the justification for going to war in Iraq was the Carter Doctrine, which basically states that America is reponsible for maintaining ’stability’ in the Middle East (yes, because of the oil) The government believed that Saddam and his real or potential WMDs threatened that stability.
If your main goal is to prevent another such war, you’re in luck, the majority of Americans don’t support it either. The majority of Americans will approve of a war for self-defense, but very few Americans want to die for the cause of realpolitik games. There is groupthink in the government, on the right and the left, but not among the wide variety of Americans out there. You know, the Mexican Americans, Black Americans, Asian-Americans, Irish Americans, Italian-Americans and all those other people you view as one white, stupid, fat, bloated mass.
If Bush proposes another such war, support in America will be nonexistent. So you’re going through a lot of trouble for nothing.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
No Mary. I am afraid you force me to draw your attention to the facts and figures.
Addressing the root causes of terrorism and crime has never worked in the past and it will never work in the future.
This does not mean “free houses for all and no police!”. It means addressing root causes. People who are sick, poverty stricken and downtrodden eventually turn on their masters, or whomever happens to be handy.
Every revolutionary since Spartacus and before him no doubt, has placed this very issue at the heart of their recruitment drives. There can be no doubt that it resonates. As evidenced by your own revolution.
Feed, clothe, employ and if possible bejewel people, and they will be less willing to blow themselves (and you) up. This is not political; it’s basic common sense.
it’s doing in Britain now, as it’s doing all over Europe and especially Sweden now.
Crime is always in flux, it goes up and it goes down. My recollection of the stats is that crime has fallen in Britain since Labour came to power, and has introduced the kinds of social support that would make an American social conservative clutch their ample chests in shock. Sweden I’ve no idea, I hadn’t heard it was going up, and I live here.
As regards comparing these countries to the US, this is a fatal own goal. I relish the fun of setting you straight. I take it you know what per capita means?
The US has per capita homicide rates 3 to 4 times the European average, and incarceration rates 5 – 8 times the European average. Given that we are the namby, pampy, huggy, terrorist french kissing surrender monkeys you portray, it suggests that this model does in fact, work better. By actual orders of magnitude, stop a moment and think about that.
Unlike you, I will supply the source of these statistics. Knock yourself out.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_cap
It must strike even you as very, very odd that the US not only has more murders per capita, but 5 – 8 times as many prisoners! Surely given the high incarceration rates, there could hardly be anyone left that would have criminal leanings.
Even taking total crimes per capita, the US doesn’t do terribly well.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_percap
Still though, even the countries that are worse (and there aren’t many) imprison so much fewer of their citizens, that it’s hardly surprising they have higher overall crime rates. The true wonder is that the US doesn’t have the lowest crimes rates of all. O.K., I think I’ve milked that open goal past respectability, but you do beg for it:-)
The problem with pacifists is that they’re willing to peacefully watch others die in the cases of genocide and terrorism, rather than effectively intervening because they think all violence is abhorrent.
I’m not sure that’s true, even about pacifists. Plus given that I have tabled, albeit in the context of a democratized UN, sanctioned assassination, international swat teams and in some limited cases actual war as solutions, I think you need to check up the definition of the word pacifisim. I don’t qualify.
However, this is a distraction. The justification for going to war in Iraq was not about saving Iraqi lives. It was about sacrificing Iraqi lives to save American lives. Fight them over there etc.
I find that idea pretty abhorrent in isolation, but the cowardly, brutal, calculation of it pales into insignificance when coupled with the fact that the basic premise was and is wrong. As can be seen every day as the next lot of 20, or 30 step into the grinder.
Thousands have died, and are continuing to die, because of what can be perhaps be generously categorised as incompetence and group think. Some check or balance should have prevented that, and a comprehensive and democratic Security Council in the UN has a shot at being that check.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
The key is to address all the root causes, not exacerbate them, and treat each event as it occurs as a policing matter all the way back to source. Like crime, this will be never ending, but if the root causes are addressed, much of the worst of it will dissipate.
No it won’t. We treated the first World Trade Tower attack as a policing matter. Europe has always treated terrorism as a policing matter. That’s why terrorist paramilitary armies call Europeans cities ‘home’..
Addressing the root causes of terrorism and crime has never worked in the past and it will never work in the future. When a government ‘addresses root causes’, crime goes up, as it did in New York City during the 1970’s, as it’s doing in Britain now, as it’s doing all over Europe and especially Sweden now. If we follow your plan, you’re right, terrorism will never be eliminated. It will increase exponentially.
Of course, you don’t need proof to present your unworkable ideas as workable. You don’t need proof because your faith is absolute.
You present your arguments very well (are you a salesman in real life? A lawyer? Marketing? ) but your ideals aren’t based on research, facts, or workable political theory. Your pacifist transnationalism is based on faith. Pacifism doesn’t work as a political system - ask the Tibetans.
[I know, you’ll deny that you’re a pacifist, but if it walks like a duck..Why are pacifists afraid to admit that they’re pacifists lately? ]
The problem with pacifists is that they’re willing to peacefully watch others die in the cases of genocide and terrorism, rather than effectively intervening because they think all violence is abhorrent. Although you’re presenting your ideas as a sort of democratic global management system,. your only real goal is to eliminate violence, and (although you don’t wan to admit it) self defense. Because to you, all violence is bad.
I think I already told you about neo-neocon’s discussion of pacifism as a faith. You really should read it. She said:
Pacifism sometimes seems illogical and naive to those who don’t espouse it. But the key to the logic of pacifism–and it definitely has its own logic–is that it is a belief system. As such, it’s based on certain premises which are accepted as articles of faith and that, to pacifists, can stand outside the realm of proof.
You’re using the “logic” of pacifism here.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
By the way Ymarsakar, thanks for introducing me to “The Futurists” Blog.
I consider myself a “still to be convinced” transhumanist, this guy raises a lot of fascinating points.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“Rational people know they must be subject to law”
But whose law? What if you’re a Muslim who believes the only real law is Sharia?
No I have explained that. Sharia law, while objectionable to you and I is not grounds for a war. That would be considered a matter for local regulation.
That doesn’t stop us highlighting the basic injustice of it, and working to change peoples mind on the subject of course.
I am NOT proposing a set of homogenised laws governing every aspect of human activity. That is completely nuts.
I am suggesting laws aggressively regulating the use of the military. To such a degree that eventually having a massive military would be considered foolish.
Such changes will take decades perhaps centuries, binding global law is simply the start.
Subsidiarity is the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority.
It is found in several constitutions around the world (see for example the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution).
It is presently best known as a fundamental principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where member states agree that action of individual countries is insufficient.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Therefore enforcement does not work until such a time as the rest of the world builds up their military to equal America’s.
No this backwards, and indicative of the US militant, down in the bunker mentality.
No one is going to force anyone to signup to these arrangements, at least not in my scenario. The compelling “force” of the argument is what should win the day. The very act of getting agreement on these structures would begin to reduce military spending.
It is true that the US, could do what they liked. However, if having signed up to clear cut structures the US then reneged on them, that would generate a lot of deserved negative attention.
Plus the president who allowed such a thing to happen should be liable for arrest and trial anywhere outside of the US for the rest of his or her life.
Force against entire nation states would become the absolute utter last resort, but not against indivduals. In the case of the US it would be crazy to even suggest force. The people to target are the ones breaking the agreed laws, not millions of innocent people.
Remember, we are talking only about the right to wage war without it passing a revamped security council vote.
The big hurdle is hammering out the details, and getting agreement. However, the principle is completely sound, and vastly superior to the train wreck that currently passes for “Global Governance”.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
A few points I should comment on though :
Now, either you actually believe this- which would mean you deal in rumor not fact- or you know it’s not true
I except that there was hyperbole in my comment. There is plenty of blame to go around as regards the creation and funding of Ossama and Co. However, the US played an enormous role in creating this asshole, and setting the stage for this kind of terrorism. That cannot possibly be denied, and it would be deeply disingenous to do so.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
What exactly did you mean with the “defeated” bit?
These people, if you read the literature, consider that “Allah” is the one responsible for ensuring the defeat of the Soviets. You and I, and lets face it, probably Mr. O. himself, know that it was primarily American support, and especially those handy stingers that defeated the Soviets. It had little or nothing to do with Allah.
However, this is a useful example with which to galavanise the moronic “I want my 72 virgins too” masses. Superpower (0) vs neolithic sheep herders + Allah (1)!!! Hot Damn!!! Lets do that again!!!
Blowback is a bitch.
Which is why all such “go it alone” efforts should be illegal, and should be channelled through a democratic UN.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Instead of focusing on how the UN voting system by general consent recommended by BMC would fail concerning Muslims, look instead at the process.
The vetoes, any vetoes, always paralyzes a democratic body. However, even if you are able to remove the UN Security Council, if the UN depends upon “temporary” authority, then if the UN has more votes against America why wouldn’t America secede from the UN when the UN can’t make us do what they voted on?
In essence, America will always have a veto on UN action, even if you can convince France, Britain, China, and Russia to give up their veto powers (which is a hard enough hurdle itself). America will have that veto because the authority the UN has is not permanent, it does not have a permanent army and relies upon the consent of the governed. Therefore, if the US chooses not to obey a vote, nobody else in the UN can enforce it. Even if every nation in the globe pooled their military and economic resources fully into the UN, they still couldn’t make America do what America does not want to do.
Therefore enforcement does not work until such a time as the rest of the world builds up their military to equal America’s. In this scenario, the UN does not act to decrease warfare, but actually increases it by accelerating global power competition and conflict.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Hey douglas, will you lay off the sarcasm a bit?
I’m doing 3 filters right now, reading the things you’ve quoted, your response, and your real translated response. 2 would be better.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“Rational people know they must be subject to law”
But whose law? What if you’re a Muslim who believes the only real law is Sharia? how do you rectify that? There are lots of other similar issues that would come up with your proposal…
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
you want a one world govt- but acknowledge that the US is the model to follow
Douglas … I don’t know what to tell you. My most recent post, was long, detailed and fairly modest in scope.
If you can’t “get” how a world bound by laws surcumscribing war would be beneficial, there is very little more I can say on the subject.
Rational people know they must be subject to law, because it protects as well as restricts them. Laws are required at all tiers of society from your local town to the entire planet.
Parking meters and zoning are administered locally. Wars that could result in thousands of deaths, continent spanning pollution or in the worst case scenario, complete planetary destruction, strike me as requiring regulation at the global level.
If you don’t get it, well I’m all tapped out, and repeating myself:-)
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Here’s what I don’t get BMC- you want a one world govt- but acknowledge that the US is the model to follow- but the US is by definition anti big government, not for it. Our federal government is severly restricted, particularly compared to other nations. How do you reconcile that? And if you allow nations a degree of autonomy under you proposed world gov, how do you get any real order- because we had enough trouble just with our small, related states, much less nations that have little in common, and many old grievances…
Just curious.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“And i can hear people saying would you have left saddam in charge? well in the 2003 set up yes i would. Ideally he should have been finished off in The first war and i never understood why it was left so obviously half done.”
And you want a one world govt? That’ll work…
“The USA had an enormous amount of support aross parts of the muslim world in the wake of 9/11 which in blew in invading Iraq.”
Right. Enormous amounts of support across parts of the muslim world. It’s a self contradictory statement. I’ll keep an open mind though- please point me to the survey that demonstrates this. Thanks.
“If one lives in a feudal system where 20% of the population have all the rights and 80% of the wealth, it’s hardly surprising if they get much of the blame for societal problems. Is it?”
I suppose not, but that doesn’t make the ones leveling blame correct, does it. We worked hard to get where we are, and as any immigrant can tell you, we are happy to see others do the same. We can’t help it if others settle for the governments they have, or have philosophies or cultures that lead them into a morass. We’ve provided an example of success, what more do you want? You can’t ‘give’ success away.
“Well for a start, if the US had not funded him to the tune of billions of dollars in Afghanistan, allowing them to “defeat” the Soviets and harbour delusions of grandeur and global conquest. We’d certainly be better off.”
Now, either you actually believe this- which would mean you deal in rumor not fact- or you know it’s not true, but say it to bolster your argument- which would mean your a propagandist and a liar. I hope it’s not the latter. We did not fund the group of Jihadists that Osama was affiliated with- we funded what was esentially the Northern Alliance- a different group of fighters altogether. Osama and his compatriots were funded by Arabs. And were the Soviets NOT defeated? What exactly did you mean with the “defeated” bit? And how exactly did helping them expell an invader give them the idea that they should rule the world by defeating us? Interesting logic.
“Osama and his ilk will find a steady stream of desperate and impressionable people to do there bidding, as long as the world remains as gut wrenchingly injust as it is.”
but as soon as we acheive a one world governed utopia, that’ll be all over…no more desperate, impressionable people. whew, what a relief.
“This is simple fact. Now that Ireland has the 2nd highest GDP in the world, and is dragging the North along in it’s economic wake, the IRA are struggling to fund recruits. This isn’t a mystery, or particularly hard to grasp.”
No, though you are implying that the cause was prosperity and the dividend was peace- as opposed to the opposite, which is not only far more likely, but true.
“You should read some of the sermons transcribed at Memri,
Why? What is he saying that hasn’t been said by every rabble rousing holy war idiot before him?”
Perhaps because he actually killed 3000 odd folks going to work one day because of it, as opposed to Fred Phelps, who is impotent and unimportant because almost no one follows him. Your casual dismissal of a source of information that might not help your argument speaks volumes.
Huan- keep it up.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
All of the objections raised in the last series of posts are valid, every single one.
Let me try and see what I can do to explain how each could be addressed.
1) The prevention, prosecution and eventual elimination of terrorism and genocide is what I am keen on
We are on the same page here. One difference. Terrorism will never be eliminated. One nut job and a grievance flowers very readily into terrorism. In this respect, I am the realist, and you are the utopian.
The key is to address all the root causes, not exacerbate them, and treat each event as it occurs as a policing matter all the way back to source. Like crime, this will be never ending, but if the root causes are addressed, much of the worst of it will dissipate.
2) A global government must of necessity have global power to be effective. Do we really want to invest ONE body with that kind of power?
Depends on the power. If you are suggesting that we place the worlds military under the single control of the UN, then we are in agreement that this is lunacy.
What I am about is, giving the UN the legitimacy to issue warrants of arrest, subpoenas and the judicial infrastructure to try and convict or acquit the accused.
Now. It is true that there is a fundamental problem if an entire nation state harbours a particular person, or group of individuals. Then the option of sanctioned assassination drifts onto the table, up to and including war.
At the moment we have sanctions, and the war option, but few other useful instruments. In addition, the Security Council has a mere 15 members, 5 of whom are not elected and all of whom can derail any process with a single veto. These 5 members account for less than 25% of the global population, and 2 major landmasses are completely unrepresented.
At a minimum, a larger security council, where no vetoes exist, and a sliding scale of majority votes sliding up the scale depending on the gravity of the action brought to bear on the issues, would go a long way to solving the log jam.
3) In this instance, world government cannot acquire power without the powerful nations on this world giving them power.
Sure, but this power is “given” on a case, by case basis, not as a permanent feature, and only sufficient to address the issue of the moment. That is in effect how the system currently “works”, but the guaranteed paralysis of the Security Council constantly interferes.
The nub of the problem is
a) The decision making process is terrible.
b) The instruments that can be brought to bear are crude.
c) They can only be brought to bear on entire nation states, not individuals.
We replace this with the entire judicial armoury of
1) Warrants of arrest issued across the entire world
2) Subpoenas to appear in court, either virtually or physically.
3) Trials, convictions and acquitals.
4) Asset freezing of a suspect, and any individuals in government openly supporting them.
5) Limited military action to capture or kill suspects who will not present themselves to the court. Requiring say, a 2/3 (population based) majority to pass.
6) Broader war, where genocide or war crimes are currently in progress, requiring a 2/3 (population based) majority to pass, and countries voting in favour, contribute troops on a population-based scheme.
So why has this not been done? It seems fairly obvious, and it is a modest expansion of the current UN system.
The answer to that question lies with the countries, most especially the large and/or rich countries, and the biggest responsibility lies with the 5 permanent Security Council members. There is a very strong cynical, vested interest in keeping things as the are.
Changing the UN to a fairer system means actions these countries absolutely oppose may pass. Or worse still, actions they champion may not pass. As things are practically nothing can pass anyway, but this is still worse, because an improved UN, with fairer structures would give such a “thumbs down” greater legitimacy.
At the end of the day, that will be such a systems greatest strength. Any country can still do anything it likes, and it’s leaders or military may be indicted, subpoenaed and yelled at ad nauseam, and it won’t achieve a thing.
Still though, there are very few countries that could consistently get away with that, and the opprobrium, in the face of a genuinely representative UN, would be overwhelming and deserved.
If we already had Pinochet getting arrested in London, and Yugoslavian war criminals unable to move from their home provinces for fear of arrest and ICC warrants issued for that whack job in Uganda, we are already on the right track. We need to expand that, give it more teeth, ensure that everyone is subject and get the hell on with it!!!
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
It can be done, but certain countries must trust the UN. However, the UN can’t be trusted until you give them power over you. But, if you have no trust of the UN, and want the UN to prove the trust, then giving them power over you is a good way to demonstrate that you cannot trust the UN.
For the US, the way out of this paradox, in the Civil War, was to kill each other until one side won and enforced the federal will and demonstrated, by force, why the federal government can be trusted.
If you do it peacefully, it has far less chance of working simply because if the UN can’t even win a war against the United States, why does the United States or other countries like Russia, China, and India trust the UN to protect us? In addition to the logical paradox, there is also the problem of trusting someone to protect you that is actually weaker than you are militarily and economically.
Protectors are supposed to be wiser, superior, and stronger than the protected. In this instance, world government cannot acquire power without the powerful nations on this world giving them power. Thus, even if it happens, it just turns into a world dictatorship based upon a cabal type leadership between the world’s most populous and powerful nations, RUssia+US+China+India. All the little countries would get squashed. (This has actually been written about before in SM Stirling’s The Prince, called the coDominium an alternative solution to Soviet-US cold warism)
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
The prevention, prosecution and eventual elimination of war is what I am keen on.
Your goals are different then. The prevention, prosecution and eventual elimination of terrorism and genocide is what I am keen on.
Oh, and if we could find some way of eliminating whifty utopianism in the process, that would be a bonus.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“Your assignment is to find out why.”
Yeah, I’ve seen that one translation is “must be removed from the page of time” or some such.
Please. This is like “it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
I respect that your opinion of humankind is more generous than mine, but the tenor of some of the comments on this and other blogs tends to color my opinion of the ability of people to achieve the state of harmony you believe is possible.
We just finished a century in which “civilization” achieved more for more people than in the rest of human history combined…and slaughtered more innocents in the name of “peace, brotherhood and progress” than ever before.
A global government must of necessity have global power to be effective. Do we really want to invest ONE body with that kind of power?
“Meet the new boss / same as the old boss”
…only with a far larger jackboot.
It’s a really scary thought.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“Israel must be wiped off the map.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
This is propaganda. Your assignment is to find out why.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“The rub is that the large countries must be equally subject to the rules. Otherwise the whole thing is a farce. Can that be done?” - bmc
“Can’t we all get along?” - Rodney King (maybe not familiar to foreign readers of this blog)
“Israel must be wiped off the map.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
“The rub is that the large countries must be equally subject to the rules. Otherwise the whole thing is a farce. Can that be done?”
No.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
As far as I can tell, you’re talking about a very centralized world government, something more equivalent to the UN or the Medieval Catholic Church.
No I’m not. That’s your prejudice to the idea talking.
The prevention, prosecution and eventual elimination of war is what I am keen on.
You can keep the rest.
http://globalconfederacy.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-governance-duh.html
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
As regards the practical issue of decentralization, the fact that you and I are having this discussion somewhat renders further comment irrelevant.
The internet is decentralized and global. As society progresses, there is often unity of purpose, but power and input becomes more diffuse. For the decentralized/global society to work, individual elements have to be capable of functioning independently.
From an article on decentralization in Wired:
Concentrations of consequence, though, are not a necessary element of civilized life. They come about not because of the nature of the world or the fundamental needs of humanity, but because they have some sort of economic or political appeal. The vulnerabilities they entail persist because they are either underappreciated or not understood at all. If civilization is going to come under attack - not just by Islamic extremists, but by any number of other groups or even individuals who fail to see its merits and wish to destroy or cripple it - then those vulnerabilities need to be addressed.
Protecting particularly vulnerable targets is one answer. But a more radical response is to look for changes to the infrastructure itself, changes that more evenly spread out the risks and consequences of failure. Defense requires distribution, and military strategists are increasingly looking to technology to provide it. We should look for similar help at home. The development of distributed systems throughout the national infrastructure should be seen as a priority by all the countries of the world.
No one is looking for anyone to “parent” the world
If every member of your parliment was equally able to defend itself, and equally able to function without the others, before reaching massive consensusthen it would work. If not, it won’t.
As far as I can tell, you’re talking about a very centralized world government, something more equivalent to the UN or the Medieval Catholic Church.
It couldn’t move forward without massive consensus. It would be a slow-moving, slow-responding large target - you know, like a dinosaur.
Since the dawn of time, animals grew, in fits and starts, into larger and larger entities, but that trend ended around the Jurassic age. Let’s not make the same mistake again.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
One of the weird beliefs of the Left is that heirarchy is not necessary in human affairs.
That is a fairly fringe belief. The “right” is a similarly discontinuous hodge podge of overlapping and even partially conflicting belief systems. We can agree that both “sides” have their lunatics.
Did you see Blairs speech by the way … colour me gob smacked : http://globalconfederacy.blogspot.com/2006/05/tony-blair-un-and-global-governance.html
The devil is in the detail as they say:-)
We seem to be inching toward agreement on the need for improved international structures. Although, we are a long way from my “assassination by global referenda” option, but not so far from ensuring every breach of the global peace is prosecuted aggressively against individuals.
The rub is that the large countries must be equally subject to the rules. Otherwise the whole thing is a farce. Can that be done?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Still though it does suck, and it needs urgent change. Perhaps we agree on that.
I may not necessarily agree that it is better to try to change it than to replace it with something better. But I do know Bush and Bolton Ambassador thinks it sucks and needs urgent change, so Bush and Co definitely agrees with you, BMC.
Sure he did kudos, but then he gave them the finger.
The point you made before, was to try to work with the 55% something percent of democratic nations. If it fails, then Bush will still have fullfilled that requirement of yours.
The Left as I use it, isn’t really monolithic. It composes of a lot of people. Some socialists, some communists, Hollywood, and the progressives. They being who they are, have some weird philosophies, which I pointed out in my response to you. Not having the Left be monolithic allows fluidity and flexibility. Because someone can be of the Left, and actually hold inconsistent beliefs with the others in the Left. A true pacifist of the Left could decry both Palestinian and Israeli violence, and could be paired up by someone else of the Left (hand) who decries Israeli violence but says that the Palestinians have no other recourse than terror against the Israeli tech superiority.
If I used the Left to refer only to Americans, I would use the word Democrats. The Left, thus, is not a reference to fake liberal or classical liberal political beliefs applying to Americans, but rather specific kinds of people with a common, but not uniform, belief system.
One of the weird beliefs of the Left is that heirarchy is not necessary in human affairs. BMC, you seem to believe in some of those beliefs. Even if we say that nations and people can work together, there is going to be a leadership position available and someone is going to grab it. If you construct a system, in the UN, based upon the idea that there is no need for a leader, then it is going to run into problems when humans try to go up in the heirarchy.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
When terrorists plow an airplane into your powerfully-laden-with-legitimacy parliament, what do we do next?
My GOD. You’re right!!!! What if an earthquake strikes, or a Tsunami, or a meteor, or the sun goes supernova, or a black hole passes through the solar system and sterilizes the earth? I’ll just go hide my head up my ass shall I?
Good grief Mary, try and get past the terror, it’s a wonder you can dress yourself.
As regards the practical issue of decentralization, the fact that you and I are having this discussion somewhat renders further comment irrelevant. A global parliament should be exactly that, global.
No one is looking for anyone to “parent” the world, that is the very thing that many people are reacting against. What we need is to mutually take responsibility, and collectively agree the way forward. We absolutely do not need to be taken by the hand, or directed or instructed or dictated to.
Humans have aggregated, in fits and starts, into larger and larger groups since the dawn of time.
In every case there have been “my mud huttists”, “our villagists”, “only tribalists”, “nationalists” and “regionalists” being dragged along kicking and screaming claiming it was impossible, lunacy and an offense against the natural order.
From this remove, I can clearly see that they were all wrong. Why should I credit you with being right?
The average man is a conformist, accepting miseries and disasters with the stoicism of a cow standing in the rain. ~Colin Wilson
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
So we work to change the system not wreck it. Can you imagine how powerfully compelling and laden with legitamcy a parliament of elected representatives from every corner of the world would be?
When terrorists plow an airplane into your powerfully-laden-with-legitmacy parliment, what do we do next? This is one of many reasons why a centralized, global government is the wave of the past, not the future. Power needs to be decentralized.
The US and/or the UN can’t parent the world. Many “little countries” are perfectly capable of parenting themselves. It’s time for them to get up off the couch, stop watching reruns of Star Trek Enterprise and take responsibility for their own lives.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
don’t you recognize that Bush at least attempted to convince the rest of world through the UN?
Sure he did kudos, but then he gave them the finger. Whats the good of that? Great trial judge, loved your hair, but I’d prefer not to go to jail today. Ciao.
Couple of things. I’m not an American, so I’m not a democrat or from the mythical monolithic “left” although I do openly loathe Bush. I’m just a global citizen pissed off at stuff I totally disagree with happening in my world.
Clinton I liked, although I was mostly oblivous to his existence. However, he did some dubious stuff too.
The UN sucks, and on my humble little blog, I’ve tried to articulate what exactly there is about it that sucks. However, it’s the system that we have, it was agreed upon by the peoples of the world at the close of a conflict that killed 50 million human beings. In that sense it deserves some respect.
Still though it does suck, and it needs urgent change. Perhaps we agree on that.
So we work to change the system not wreck it. Can you imagine how powerfully compelling and laden with legitamcy a parliament of elected representatives from every corner of the world would be?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
If Bush listend to the American people, he would never have went to the UN. Clinton listened to the AMerican people, and did not go to the UN in Yugoslavia.
So if one likes the UN and multilateralism, one would think they would prefer Bush instead of fighting him.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
The US is not omnipotent. Those points are hardly mutually exclusive:-) The US is overstretched in the context of it’s current military and economy. I’ll grant you it’s some trick, but a hat trick it ain’t.
I’m not against stretching muscles to increase flexibility and blood flow. I am against overstretching, that tends to damage muscles and cause unnecessary pain. I point out the military experience and training and Defense funding because it is necessary to understand one’s capacities to understand whether one is overstretched or not.
Overstretching is not beneficial, but stretching is. I don’t really think anyone has to have the strength of a God to avoid overstretching. You just have to know your limits and not try to exceed them in terms of troops or funding.
Oh bosh. Are you eight? Do complex attitudes simply confuse and overwhelm you?
When they come from certain people, they do. Cause the Left has some mind altering philosophies, and I put a strict cap on how much of it I am willing to let myself realize that I know. This slows down my reflexes and wit, but it does have the benefit of resisting assimilation.
Fascists and Totalitarians conflate personalities with the state, not democrats!!!
But I didn’t say you had to support Bush, in anything, to support America. Rather, regardless of why you dislike Bush, it has to be tempered by the very philosophy you say you hold towards American ideals. In that, there should be no inconsistency.
That is not to let the US off the hook for inconsistency and poor decisions in the past, but would I prefer China or the Soviet Union running riot? Ah … no.
Well that is a good thing, you got one up on the competition in these terms. Most people don’t think about who can or would replace the US if they get rid of us.
I think the US is the most important country in the world as regards our mutual future, but Americans are just 5% of the global population, and you at a minimum, need to work with the other 55% of the worlds citizens that are democrats.
That’s one reason why disliking Bush’s policies don’t make sense. Out of all possible alternatives, Bush is the most multilateral President since his father, really. Clinton has already said he would never have gone to the UN. Now, regardless of whether the UN is good or not, don’t you recognize that Bush at least attempted to convince the rest of world through the UN?
And then there are initiatives at work with India-America, Japan, Coalition and non-Coalition members. Why isn’t this work multilateral and democratic in origin?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
war is a necessary evil
Huan, I’ll grant you that force is a necessary evil. However, war in the world we live in today is not required.
We need binding, agreed, “ouch it bites now I’m dead, well we told you so” law. Not war.
If China could function as a unitary state 2000 years ago with practically no technology, the world can get agreement on something as serious war in 2006.
The will is what we lack, not the means.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Why should the representatives in the UN, who are elected by nobody, have the right to make laws for unrepresented people?
We are on the same page here. Lets reform the UN and elect representatives based on a population weighted system.
The US has the most powerful military and the richest country and this means you are wrong about us being stretched
The US is not omnipotent. Those points are hardly mutually exclusive:-) The US is overstretched in the context of it’s current military and economy. I’ll grant you it’s some trick, but a hat trick it ain’t.
inconsistency going on.
Oh bosh. Are you eight? Do complex attitudes simply confuse and overwhelm you?
I can totally love the US and all it stands for and viscerally despise Bush with every fibre of my being, and yet be completely consistent. Fascists and Totalitarians conflate personalities with the state, not democrats!!! Jesus … democracy 101 here.
My position is a good bit more nuanced. I think the US on balance has been good for the world, up until Bush arrived. You know why. That is not to let the US off the hook for inconsistency and poor decisions in the past, but would I prefer China or the Soviet Union running riot? Ah … no.
I think the US is the most important country in the world as regards our mutual future, but Americans are just 5% of the global population, and you at a minimum, need to work with the other 55% of the worlds citizens that are democrats.
That shouldn’t be too much to expect surely?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
@bmcworldcitizen
actually no where in my post that i even suggested and mentioned the might of the US
you are confused
the gist of my post was that typical of leftists and neo-liberals, their ideas do not have any applicable practice
war is a necessary evil
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
1) Laws should impinge on people, not states.
Why should the representatives in the UN, who are elected by nobody, have the right to make laws for unrepresented people?
Specifically : “The US has the most powerful militarily and is the richest country in the world. Therefore, we will do as we please.
Stop being obtuse. The US has the most powerful military and the richest country and this means you are wrong about us being stretched. Stop changing the subject.
This is a cheap trick. I and most of the people who deplore Bush are in favour of the ideals enshrined in the US constitution, and until Bush and his gang hove into view those ideals were gaining ground, with minimal violence, around the world.
Bush was elected by those “ideals” in the US Constitution and the people in the US as well, not once but twice. So this is like saying MLKj is a good guy but violence can still be supported. There’s a bit of inconsistency going on.
about betavote, it is a very good idea to keep statistically balanced polls from futuristic away from internet based convenience polls.
That Saddam was a monstrous idiot goes without saying. Why must it constantly explained?
People keep asking about Saddam not so they can hear the sound of your voice decrying Saddam, what they really want is to hear some solution offered to get rid of him. Again, assassination is not a solution because Saddam bought the people doing the assassinating.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
America is good, is great — but is imperfect. The Left that blames America for Iraqis starving due to sanctions, is failing to blame Saddam, the acting dictator in charge, for the deaths.
That Saddam was a monstrous idiot goes without saying. Why must it constantly explained?
However, coming off “better” than Saddam is hardly a ringing endorsement of your human rights credentials.
Your post simply preceisly what you claim the “left” (whatever that means) are doing. Blaming everyone else.
If one lives in a feudal system where 20% of the population have all the rights and 80% of the wealth, it’s hardly surprising if they get much of the blame for societal problems. Is it?
Grasp it. Please. We live in one big world and global society will no longer allow you to do as you please. At least not without highlighting the boundless and vomit inducing hypocrisy of a democracy at home and a feudal system abroad.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Thanks for a lot fewer insults than most such threads! (this is a copy from Part I … for continuing discussion)
The Palestinians had a point that Israel’s creation was not perfectly just. Yet from 1948 - 1967 Muslim Egypt and Jordan could have but failed to support the creation of a second, Palestinian state, next to the Jewish state, on pre-1967 boundaries.
Instead crazy USSR supported Nasser massed troops on the border, and Israel wiped out the wimpy Muslim fighters in 6 days.
The Jews humiliated the weak, disorganized, undisciplined Arab Muslims — which is a big reason the Jews are hated. Much more so than them taking land which had been conquered Ottoman land, and very poor, for centuries. Muslim shame about weakness has been turned into Jew-hate and America-hate. Supported by those who hate capitalism’s success.
The oppression has always been Arab oppression of Palestinians, as is true in Lebanon today, while blaming it on the West, the US, and Israel. Mostly false blame, yet Israel hasn’t been perfectly just — and there is NO “pure justice” available today.
Peace will require acceptance of less than justice.
It’s important to see how the Left blames America/ the West for most of the evil of recent history.
The Holocaust murders were caused by Hitler, not the West’s unjust Treaty of Versailles; the Cambodian Killing Fields were caused by (China supported) commie Pol Pot, not Nixon’s bombing [with commie victory enabled by the Dems voting to end funding for fighting evil]; the Rwanda genocide was Hutu vs unjust Tutsi (French enabled, Clinton calling it “not genocide”, until it was over); the Darfur genocide is enabled by the UN & Amnesty calling it “not genocide.”
The choice is war or genocide, and the anti-war folk want to stop genocide with words, only. Their failure to do is blamed … on America.
The evil is done by the evil actors, and such evil actors always look to excuse their evil actions with some imperfections of others.
America is good, is great — but is imperfect. The Left that blames America for Iraqis starving due to sanctions, is failing to blame Saddam, the acting dictator in charge, for the deaths.
The Left that blames America for Iraqis dying from suicide bombs is failing to blame the acting Islamist murderers, though more Iraqis are starting to.
The purpose of the blame includes “keeping their hands clean,” but also indulging in BDS Bush-hate. It’s fun to demonize “the enemy” — and Bush-haters do it, with Bush as the enemy.
If Iran gets a nuke, and allows Hizbollah to nuke Tel Aviv “secretly” — such “blame America first” Leftists will blame America.
America should act like Iran is on that path now. Iran, unlike Israel, signed the NPT. That means, for 3 years they’ve been in violation of their signed agreements.
What does “international law” say about violations? Well, no UN SC resolution, no enforcement. It’s not really law, because there’s no World Cop; no World Judge; no democratic World Legislature. There “is” the UN, full of corrupt dictators, all looking to blame America for any evil by themselves, and using America’s imperfections as justifications.
The purpose of the UN was to stop genocide, and stop war — and it has failed, failed, failed, and is still failing. As long as there are important, powerful countries that don’t accept Free Press & Free Religion, it will continue to fail.
(The world needs a Human Rights Enforcement Group / coalitions of willing democracies — but such an org doesn’t exist yet.)
Of course, the Left blames the failures of the UN on … America! Not supporting the ICC, not doing enough (in Darfur), doing too much (in Iraq). Even the weather is America’s fault! — Bush doesn’t support signing Kyoto (which Clinton’s gov’t rejected). Of course, those that DID sign, are virtually all in violation.
But “signed treaties”, like the Paris Peace Accords, are only really to be followed by America. Other country violations don’t matter, don’t count, and never reduce the blame to be given to (too-)rich America for being imperfect.
I blame Bush, too, a little bit — he should have been talking about invading Darfur for two years. He should have pointed out the alternative to imperfect American invasion is slo-mo, UN enabled genocide.
He should also talk about how long, and slow is the process of nation-building. Look at how Iraq is already ahead of Kosovo (media suppressed info, of course).
There were other ways to help Iraqs rebuild faster (municipal loan bonds to elected Iraqi mayors, for instance, controlled by Iraqis), and much cheaper for the US taxpayer.
But read the Euston Manifesto — Leftists like Norm Geras who is more honestly in favor of human rights and democracy, and is increasing disturbed by the rampant, intellectually dishonest anti-Americanism of so much of the Left.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
but then i didn’t expect you to. that is the problem with mere ideas when they have to be applied to real life. most cannot make the transition.
Huan, you had nothing meaningful to add. Your questions are just long winded attempts to justify the kindergarten “I’m bigger” justification for US behaviour. As detailed above.
However, I’m an accomodating guy, so I’ll give it a go:-)
1. If you kill the people doing the killing, would you have to kill yourself as well?
No. The question is ludicrous. The US has states with the death penalty doesn’t it? That hardly needs further explanation.
2. Is a democratically sanction assassination make it right?
No. It’s a dreadful solution, but it’s far superior to war where thousands of innocent parties are killed. I would have to be very closely managed, very transparent and very democratic.
Ever heard of oppression by the majority?
Sure, but the only rights at issue here are the rights to make war or suppress the rights of your citizens, and we are talking about very narrowly focused efforts. The ICC is a very weak version of the same thing, break the law and face the consequences.
Again, it’s a dreadful solution, but it beats war by orders of magnitude.
As regards the rest of your comments. To use your monolithic and simplistic American terminology. The “right” needs to get out of the time warp that has them stranded in the 1940’s.
To pro-Bush war supporters, the world is forever stuck in the 1930s. Every leader we don’t like is Adolf Hitler, a crazed and irrational lunatic who wants to dominate the world. Every country opposed to our interests is Nazi Germany.
From this it follows that every warmonger is the glorious reincarnation of the brave and resolute Winston Churchill. And one who opposes or even questions any proposed war becomes the lowly and cowardly appeaser, Neville Chamberlain
It is of course simple minded nonsense. We do not live in the 1940’s, we live in a networked interdependent world where communication is instant and culture is in constant flux. Techonology has facilitated communication to such a degree, that any two random people today have more in common with each other than any two random “Americans” in the 18th century.
I’m an Irishman living in Sweden lecturing an American. Case closed.
That is why binding laws we agree should target individuals, not nation states. We know who they are, and we know their movements. At the very least with such a system, we could make ruling for those we consider in breach of our laws practically impossible. Consider the situation of the war criminals in the former Yugoslavia.
Of course the scenario you outline could spiral out of control, even in the real world we live now, and flare up into actual war. However I fail to see how trying this route is worse than immediatley going to war?
The worst thing you can say about it is that getting agreement would be hard. Not as hard as you might think though …. small countries that do not make pre-emptive war on their neighbours have nothing to fear from such an arrangement, and much to gain.
Cetainly a beefed up ICC if the US supported it would be a cakewalk.
5. The enemy of good is perfect. That is the difference between a realist and an idealist.
You must be far gone indeed to consider what I’ve outlined as “perfect”. Nonetheless it’s a big improvement on the current crap arrangements.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
I think neo missed the points of opposition to this war. I called it long before we even started combat operations in Iraq. The Bush administration, as a whole, LIED to the American people, period. They did NOT tell us the truth. Now I realize they think the truth is whatever they tell us it is or whatever they think they can repeat enough times but there is such a thing as objective truth. And we didnt get it from the Bush administration before the war or since.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
@bmcworldcitizen
you did not reply to my post.
but then i didn’t expect you to. that is the problem with mere ideas when they have to be applied to real life. most cannot make the transition.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Oh and one more thing. Dislike of Bush is not even close to dislike of the US.
This is a cheap trick. I and most of the people who deplore Bush are in favour of the ideals enshrined in the US constitution, and until Bush and his gang hove into view those ideals were gaining ground, with minimal violence, around the world.
Here is a slightly more balanced sampling which reflects global opinon of Bush not America. Lets keep the two separate.
http://www.betavote.com/
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Let me respond as pithily as possible.
1) Laws should impinge on people, not states.
2) Laws should punish the guilty, not tens of thousands of the innocent.
3) In any polity where the overwhelming majority of citizens have no say in issues that are vital to them, were they are never or rarely consulted on issues of life and death, you have outrage, and often violence.
4) The removal of “One dollar one vote” as a system of government began in the 18th century and continues today. It is not something that rational people want to regress to.
You are basically trying to portray an untenable kindergarten position as noble, brave and inspiring. Specifically : “The US has the most powerful militarily and is the richest country in the world. Therefore, we will do as we please.
Thats what I object to, and I’d be crazy to accept such a diktate, and if you were in my position … Well, lets just say that rational argument wouldn’t be your preferred choice of instrument.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
1. If you kill the people doing the killing, would you have to kill yourself as well?
That does bring up an interesting point. What happens if the american president has enough votes to assassinate the French President on the UN Security Council. If the French resist, is the US allowed to lobe nuclear bombs and stealth bombers at Paris to make the French turn in their President?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Did you serve man, nyo?
American armed response ended those things. The Europeans did things a bit differently.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
There are lots of alternatives but they are complex, require thought and need to go beyond a kneejerk response. Simply advocating armed resopnse is not working. None have been taken, the kneejerk “HAAAAAAAAAAAATE BUUUSHHHH! Screw Reason.”
Lot of Alternatives; picking daisies, napping, making a triple decker peanut butter and jelly sandwich … some times you have to react more quickly than one would reading through the universal book of alternatives.
Complex is not a reason for intellectual laziness and cowardice to face hard decisions.
Armed response ended Feudalism, Slavery, Militarism, Nazism, Communism, Totalitarianism, and in time Jihad [probably the greatest challenge of all].
I served.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
@bmcworldcitizen said…
This is were we differ. I say kill the people doing the killing. That we decide on these serious issues in an agreed way, and we make the process as open and democratic as possible.
I don’t like the idea of killing anyone, but sometimes force is the only option. When it is the only option left, then bring it to bear directly on the leadership only.
Have a security council session, whatever. Announce it upfront the guy can turn himself in or face the consequences.
How is your option of sending hundreds of thousands of innocent american service personnel into harms way more rational?
The truth is it isn’t, how could it possibly be?
1. If you kill the people doing the killing, would you have to kill yourself as well?
2. Is a democratically sanction assassination make it right? Ever heard of oppression by the majority?
3. Yes, sometimes force is the only option. But you say lets limit it to the leader. Ok, lets try it out. Lets say the system is in place in 1940. We have authorization to assassinate Hitler. Lo and behold Hitler declines to turn himself in. So we try Assassination. But we fail because there are Nazis who actually like, agree with, support and protect Hitler. Some also do so not because they like him, but dislike you. Some also do so because they disagree with assassinations. Some also just don’t like foreigners interfering in their national politics. Now what, how many of these people can we kill as we try to kill Hitler? And do you think they will just wait for the next assassination attempt or will they take active steps, even apply force against you? And what if they don’t believe in assassination but prefer lobbing V2 bombs instead. Or a suicide bomber even?
4. War is an ugly and nasty thing and to be avoided. But war should not to be avoided at any and all costs because there are certainly worse things than war. There are oppression and systematic murder, there are rape camps, and there is a nasty thing called genocide popular when a majority tries to eliminate a minority. Thus sometimes war must be reluctantly initiated to end such atrocities. And sacrifices are required. A declaration of war cannot be hidden, thus must be deliberated, debated, and be held accountable for. That is much preferable to a foreign policy predicated on assassination that is both limited by selectivity and secrecy.
5. The enemy of good is perfect. That is the difference between a realist and an idealist.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups are internationally organized, highly trained paramilitary forces, funded by states with the hope of disabling and conquering other nations.
Really? And you know this how?
Their actions speak louder than your words.
With your efforts to polish the turd of Saudi/Iranian/Islamist-sponsored terrorism, I’m surprised you don’t work for the state department.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
This answers some questions about what is an Iraqi success
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Here’s a good link stuff, read it, it gets you going.
The next time a fashion-parroting ignoramus or fifth-columnist informs you of how ‘the rest of the world hates America’, forward them this article, and remind them that India has more people than Europe and the Middle East put together. The delusions of fifth-columnists represent merely their fanatical hatred of a society that celebrates meritocracy, strong families, a powerful and proud military, and a great thirst for achievement.
link
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
What if American occupation forces are the weeds ; ) What do you do then?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
True, but you can prepare the fertile ground by getting rid of the weeds…
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
YOu can’t impose democracy by the sword. Doing a favor so people don’t have to repeat that argument.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“Why? What is he saying that hasn’t been said by every rabble rousing holy war idiot before him?”
Well, for one thing, it’s not just “a couple of crazy guys with delusions”, it’s pretty much the entire panoply of Islamic imams, extolling those millions of “moderate” Muslims to hate the kaffir every Friday, which you’d understand, if you were actually aware of it by, you know, reading the site.
But hey, it doesn’t bother you that they want you dead.
I’m glad Ireland is doing so well economically. Wouldn’t it be great if the U.S. could export democracy and capatilism to those dysfunctional Middle Eastern states, obviating the need for terrorism while they could enjoy freedom and prosperity in places like Iraq?
Oh, wait…
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups are internationally organized, highly trained paramilitary forces, funded by states with the hope of disabling and conquering other nations.
Really? And you know this how?
The only state funding that we know Bin Laden got was from the US. Bin Laden’s main beef at the time of 11/9/01 was that US troops were in the Saudi peninsular as guests of King Faisal.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
How many civilians did the Brits kill on bloody Sunday, was it even as many as 20? Yet that unleashed 30 years of terrorism, which we have only just begun to get over in the last 10 years.
As far as I know, it started because the union thug/terrorists were picking on the Catholics, the Catholic thugs/terrorists struck back, Brits came in to ‘help’ and, as they always do, they wound up fighting terrorism with bigger terrorism (Bloody Sunday).
You can’t fight terrorism with terrorism and you can’t fight it with appeasement. Those are the only two options the Brits ever use because they’re clueless. That doesn’t mean that there are no other options.
Irish resentment against the Brits and the Protestants was based on hundreds of years of horrific repression. Irish terrorism wasn’t funded by billions in oil money and it wasn’t supported by states. Al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups are internationally organized, highly trained paramilitary forces, funded by states with the hope of disabling and conquering other nations. The IRA is not really comparable to these groups.
This is were we differ. I say kill the people doing the killing. That we decide on these serious issues in an agreed way, and we make the process as open and democratic as possible.
You are disagreeing with the UN’s policies here. They’re an organization of elites whose goal is to protect people with political power. That’s why Idi Amin and Pol Pot died of old age, and it’s why they’re peacefully watching people die in Darfur. Because they are opposed to killing the people doing the killing.
If we make war plans as “open and democratic as possible”, if we broadcast our war plans, we lose.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Ymarsakar said…
More rational because Solobodan Milosev didn’t get tried in UN war crimes.
You want UN war crimes tribunals? Milosivic is the result.
When i see a sucessful UN prosecution under war crimes, that is when war crimes prosecution under the UN is more rational than the successful invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Who wouldn’t sign up to the war crimes tribunal? Who threatened sanctions against big bad Belgium?
Hypocrisy is the killing of it.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Yfronts said…
Really? Think again.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
More rational because Solobodan Milosev didn’t get tried in UN war crimes.
You want UN war crimes tribunals? Milosivic is the result.
When i see a sucessful UN prosecution under war crimes, that is when war crimes prosecution under the UN is more rational than the successful invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
i’d say assassinate whoever gets in your war! yay!
This is were we differ. I say kill the people doing the killing. That we decide on these serious issues in an agreed way, and we make the process as open and democratic as possible.
I don’t like the idea of killing anyone, but sometimes force is the only option. When it is the only option left, then bring it to bear directly on the leadership only.
Have a security council session, whatever. Announce it upfront the guy can turn himself in or face the consequences.
How is your option of sending hundreds of thousands of innocent american service personnel into harms way more rational?
The truth is it isn’t, how could it possibly be?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Know your enemy.
I thought only war mongers and neo-cons read Sun Tzu?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
He doesn’t because he can’t, you guys are overstretched, bogged down doing something of very dubious value.
Look, any other country would be overstretched. But we’re talking about America here. America has 50 nation-states to draw upon in terms of resources, manpower, and logistics. California alone, has GDP equal to France or Germany. Even if we devoted the full resources of Texas, California, and Georgia combined, that still leaves 47 other states to power the war machine.
The US is currently spending around 500 billion for Defense. That is 4% GDP of a 11 trillion dollar economy, per year. A lot of people simply cannot grasp how large 11 trillion dollars is. But it is quite big.
Based upon simple statistics and reasoning, the US cannot be overstretched putting out a couple of divisions in Iraq, when the Iraqis themselves have EXCEEDED the total number of US troops in Iraq. Iraq can exceed our combat troops because the US is paying and providing for Iraqi logistics. But Iraq only has 25 million people, while the US has 300 million people.
500 billion is more than the GDP of scores of nations.
Bush doesn’t go into Darfur because America did not become America by invading every country tha was self-destructing. We didn’t become america by using up our resources on those kinds of countries either. The early history of America was marked by isolationism, and avoidance of European warlike policies. Having the wisdom to choose the best wars to go into, makes a big difference historically.
No he isn’t. I didn’t vote for him, I didn’t have the choice even not to vote.
Nobody votes for the UN. You wanna change that? Go ahead.
Didn’t you people have a revolution because some fancy foreigner tried to make you do stuff you didn’t want to do?
The US doesn’t need any one else’s help to do anything. Since the US handles 90% of the combat in any allied theater, the amount NATO allies or Coalition allies can contribute to combat are noticeably limited to logistical/infrastructure/spec ops help.
We had a Revolutionary War cause we got taxation without representation. Who is actually paying for the US military, and not getting the benefits of our protection? And who is getting the benefits of the US military’s protection without paying for it? A big difference in those two numbers.
You deal with terrorism by draining the swamp of poverty and injustice, not dropping mega tons of DDT.
That’s one of the reasons why Bush won’t go into Darfur. When people talk about America dropping mega tons of DDT when we aren’t, we’re not going to do the world any favors, especially when Americans are paying for our military and not the world or darfur. Any African nation can obtain United States protection and status by becoming a US protectorate, sorta like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. But like immigration, no nation-state can apply to be annexed as the 51st state. That just doesn’t happen anymore, which is very bad for Africa.
Plus, you just don’t get to decide alone who lives and who dies. That is not cool.
Taxation without representation is bad. Taxation with representation may not be good, but it isn’t bad either. America gets to decide what our military does because Americans pay for their own military, with that 500 billion. No one else’s military is being taxed without representation. No other nation is required to contribute, without representation.
Between the EU and the US we account for 60% of economic activity on the planet, and 50% of its armed forces, and (excluding Russia) practically all the WMD.
And between the EU and the US, how many combat divisions does the EU have compared to US assets? Russia has a 1 million man army on paper, but they can only fied around 15,000 to fight in Chechnya. Putin told this to his people in his state of the union address (state of the union, pretty hilarious, did they somehow model their stuff after the US?)
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Oh you guys are so funny aren’t you?
Hamas was originally funded by mossad. Simple.
They have a ceasefire in place and were NOT responsible for your celebrated pizza bombing. OK? They have offered a total ceasefire in return for Israeli cessation of extrajudicial murders.
Hezbollah was borne in the refugee camps of South Lebanon. They fought a campaign against the 22 year Israeli occupation. They do not target civilians and never have. And they won.
Know your enemy.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
@bmcwor