Correction time, it’d be “the belief line”. Got switched around.

The reasoning is thus. While there are 3 different paths to disbelief, belief, and refusal to believe until more information is forthcoming, you don’t subscribe to any one of them concerning what you said about Iraq the Model.

You obviously don’t believe it, and you use the propaganda line as a reason to disbelieve it. Yet your further comments show that you also believe that you can’t determine whether it is propaganda or not, because it is ‘unverifiable’. You might have used a different wording however, but the meaning would be the same.

So, if you don’t believe it, and you don’t disbelieve it, and you aren’t waiting for more information since you admit you expect no more information, then the only reason why you would bring up the propaganda point is to discount the credibility of Iraq the Model as a justification for why I’m right, and you’re wrong.

Thus, while you don’t obviously subscribe to the belief, disbelief, or witholding of belief concerning whether Iraq the Model is a propaganda project, your actions lean heavily towards the disbelief line.

So when I say that you said Iraq the Model is a propaganda project, I didn’t mean it in the literal sense.

I specifically said that one has no way of knowing if Iraqi blogs critical of the occupation, purported to be written by ordinary Iraqis, are being put up by the insurgents.

That was one of the reasons why I said you disbelieved it, because you said there is no way to know. If there is no way to know, then obviously you don’t subscribe to the trilinear options of intellectual honesty. So I choose the most likely and consistent course of behavior and belief.

I believe Iraq the Model is the real deal and I’ve already considered that it is a CIA/Bush propaganda project. As I’ve said, the justifications were lacking in quantity as well as quality for this line of argument.

In the end, saying it is “possible” that Iraq the Model is a propaganda project without being able to prove it or even believe that it is provable, is a useless justification for why you were right about Iraqi opinions and why I was wrong to quote an Iraqi opinion.

As for the Hamas propaganda, I’ve already detailed the reasons and justifications for why Hamas is conducting a propaganda project with the beach incident. If you don’t have any way to know one way or the other, that doesn’t mean I’m stuck in the same rut.

If you want to straddle the fence, Charles, go ahead. But you might as well call for Hamas legitimizing their own investigations as calling for Israel to conduct a “more legitimate” trial ny judge.

For someone that says Iraq the Model is a CIA propaganda project and therefore he does not believe it, you don’t seem to recognize the actual potentials and capabilities of Palestinian propaganda, Charles.

You’re setting up a strawman here, Ymarsakar. Can you show me where I said that “Iraq the Model” was a propaganda project? I never said so. What I said was that, since it has been reported and acknowledged by the US military itself that the US pays Iraqi media to write and place positive-sounding stories, it cannot be ruled out that the blog in question is one such piece of work, and that this fact should be kept in mind. In other words, I made sufficiently clear that I neither believe nor disbelieve the Iraqi blog you mentioned.

The opposite of “believing” something is not necessarily “disbelieving” it, Ymarsakar. Often, the opposite of either of this two is simply “withholding or reserving judgment”. Only the naive go through the world constantly making such black/white, binary choices, such as “If you don’t believe it, that means you must disbelieve it!” Or, to take another one, “If you aren’t not with me, you must be against me.”

As I said, only the naive go through the world in such a simplistic way.

Incidentally, I also said I look at Iraqi blogs critical of the occupation (such as the one maintained by the Iraqi woman called “Riverbend”) with the exact same degree of “reserving of judgment”. I specifically said that one has no way of knowing if Iraqi blogs critical of the occupation, purported to be written by ordinary Iraqis, are being put up by the insurgents.

In short, I am, and I made it amply clear that I am, what one might call an “equal-opportunity skeptic”.

Furthermore, nowhere did I say that, in this particular incident, I believe the Palestinians’ version of the incident, either. I merely pointed out that the same report in the Jerusalem Post that Sally posted an excerpt from, also states:

“HRW however disputes this claim and basing itself on Palestinian hospital documentation, claims that the explosion actually took place right around the time of the IDF artillery fire.”

It is to be noted that I precisely did not add, in my posting, any editorial comment of my own about belief or disbelief, whether my own or other people’s.

No, I didn’t.

I didn’t quote the entire story, true, since it was easily available from the link. But I did take some pains to note that the IDF and HRW continue to differ over a number of details. One of them concerns the timing of the explosion — but note that even in the part of the article in which these details are brought up, Garlasco, the HRW investigator, is reported as saying ‘Klifi’s team did a “competent job” to rule out the possibility that the blast was caused by artillery fire’.

In contrast to that, do we have any reports of any investigation by any side or any NGO of the death, injury and destruction caused by Hamas’ rockets deliberately fired into Israeli civilian population centers, including schools? No. We don’t. They don’t exist. No NGO is interested.

For someone that says Iraq the Model is a CIA propaganda project and therefore he does not believe it, you don’t seem to recognize the actual potentials and capabilities of Palestinian propaganda, Charles.

It is rather easy, and Hamas has done this before, to bribe doctors and secretaries to forge documentation to corroborate the Story Arc, especially if this is planned ahead of time. And I believe it is.

Hamas knows HRW down to its tail bones, and it also knows the Palestinian doctors, nurses, and whomevers.

While HRW investigates the check and balances of Israel’s investigation, HRW and you are quite obviously ignoring the lack of check and balances in Palestinian hospitals and how prone they are to factual manipulation and mis-data representation.

Iraq saw this in fallujah as well, where hospitals in Fallujah started reporting civilian casualties, which did not exist in reality. Or if it did, the terroists were shooting people and threatening the doctors to say that it was by Americans, or the doctors would disappear.

Palestinian Princess, who lives in Palestine, supports my arguments, specifically about how Hamas are a bunch of goons, mafia types, and we all know the mafia loves threatening people to do what they wantvia extortion.

“While Klifi’s team did a “competent job” to rule out the possibility that the blast was caused by artillery fire, there were still, Garlasco said, a number of pieces of evidence that the IDF commission did not take into consideration.

“The main argument between Klifi and HRW surrounded the timeline of the blast, which the IDF said took between 16:57 and 15:10, at least 10 minutes after artillery fire in the area had stopped. HRW however disputes this claim and basing itself on Palestinian hospital documentation, claims that the explosion actually took place right around the time of the IDF artillery fire.”

Garlasco [Human Rights Watch investigator] told Klifi [head of the IDF inquiry] during the meeting that he was impressed with the IDF’s system of checks and balances concerning its artillery fire in the Gaza Strip and unlike Hamas which specifically targeted civilians in its rocket attacks, the Israelis, he said, invested a great amount of resources and efforts not to harm innocent civilians.

‘We differ when it comes to other pieces of information from other sources that don’t relate to the military strike such as the timing and the type of injuries,” Mair explained. “While they [the IDF] made a very good presentation, we still think there are enough unanswered questions that have not been examined by Klifi’s team…and that is why we believe there should be an independent investigation.”

Link goes direct to comments

So you can use this link to post a comment there.

However I will say that the problems arise because of inconsistency. If Bush stopped using multilateral strategies in NK, then this would solve the problem of NK, perhaps permanently. This would also remove the pretext Iran has for pursuing nuclear weapons, because NK would have been the example that having nukes don’t mean you are protected from the US.

The mixture of unilateral and multilateral actions, best depicted by Iraq, is a harmful hybrid titration that is not a good idea to pursue.

The detriments of the multilateral strategy with NK producing an arms race in Iran, is not I say again it is not an indication that the unilateral or enforcement policies of the USA is in itself flawed.

So cut out the portion that had the dictators. The main gist of the sentence was whether you believed that the humans in the UN would look out for the interests of the citizens of the member nations, without the check and balances in the US system.

The mention of many of the member nations in the UN being dictators is to further prove the point that the UN does not look out for the interests of the citizens of member nations, it was not an indication that you believed the UN was only full of democratic nations. The reverse logic, if you include what I said, is that even if we assume for the sake of argument that Indians are represented by the UN, the same cannot be said for dictatorship countries.

This is a layered argument, which takes one argument at one level, then makes another argument on another. It is about the same subject, but rather than staying on one logic track, it branches out to other possibilities.

Bureaucrats do not set policies.

The UN bureacrats did not set the policy of which nations were able to deal with Saddam under the Oil for Food program, which companies had the right to make deals with an internationally sanctioned regime? It is quite apparent given the evidence, logic, and reasoning that bureacrats do set the application of policies. Unless you are suggesting of course that the representatives of France and Russia worked to set policies that would enable them to exploit Saddam and the Iraqis for their own gain, in return for being exploited by Saddam.

Those who control the details of a plan, control that plan. It matters not who set the policy into existence in the beginning, if that policy is used against the spirit of the founders. This is a false argument about metaphysics. By quoting the causality chain of who set the policy first, you are not making one dint on whether bureacrats unlawfully corrupt the spirit and purpose of those policies.

Again, India has 1.1 billion people, and yet they do not have a veto on whether someone becomes the UN Secretary-General or not. You remark on the representation India gets at the UN, but the obvious differences in representation by population belays that claim. When you talk about a vote, I do remind you that the basis of liberal democracies is one man, one vote, one time. India canvote how many times they want for a leader, but the nations with vetos can override them all the time, therefore their vote does not matter. We’re not talking about the future, btw, so any reforms you seek to implace is not relevant to whether Indians and other nation-peoples get representation NOW or Before.

Nevertheless, as I said before, the UN is a good start.

A undemocratic start is not a good start. The American Revolution which acquired independence but did not remove slavery, that was a good start cause obviously we look at the current events and we understand that it was a success. The UN which disenfranchises the billion or so people in India and other countries like Japan, which pay the UN proportionally most of their funding, is not a good start. Why? Simply because, not only does the UN tax nations like Germany and Japan (the more wealthier nations) without representation, but they don’t represent the great majority of the people in this world. Any redeem values people remark about the UN are figments of their imagination, hopes and desires that might exist sometime in the future, but in the current affairs what we have is things like Peacekeeping for Sex in the Congo, Blood for Oil in Iraq, and various other boondogles that instead of being investigated, are actually being covered up and ignored, delayed and rope a doped. Things are a good start when people have reasonable justifications that it will end well, or if they have confirmation through history that it did end well. Some starts were bad, and then ended up being successful like Washington’s entire life perhaps, but that is not quite relevant to “good starts” as you mean it.

Too much idealism is not useful, and therefore not a good start.

What I said was that, compared to a scenario in which the USA effectively functions as a world government

But the US doesn’t function as a world government even today. It can only be described as an enforcement agency that enforces specific standards upon as many people as it can reach and influence. A government requires taxation, the US taxes nobody. In point of fact, our military protection is extended to many nations via “status of forces acts” with no revenue being returned, in Germany for example our bases are actually revitalizing the local economy there. I have never heard of a government that provided benefits to citizens and paying them a reward, without that government deriving taxes from those citizens. Well, I actually I have, and it is called socialized welfare. So if you mean the US is the socialized welfare nanny of the world, then yes it is. BUt if you mean world gov as in “collects taxes and administers laws”, then no.

The UN you refer to as representative is in the future, right now it is not representing anyone except the interests of the power lobbyists and the bureacrats. The US you refer to as a world government, is no such world government in today’s world.

It’s time to start talking about what exists today, rather than the ideas of the future.

Why? Because an Indian citizen has at least some say in policy decisions at UN (through the representative sent to the General Assembly by the Indian government which the Indian citizen democratically elected) whereas the Indian citizen has absolutely no say in policy decisions made by the US government.

Again, I repeat the argument I made before that nullies this claim of yours. Indians elect their government, and their government makes 1 to 1 individual deals with the USA. This allows the recognition of India, by America, of their economic potential and population. Which the UN does not do at this moment. Your argument that an Indian citizen at the lowest base, has more say in the policy decisions of the UN, then the policy decisions of US-Indian relations, deals, and economic evaluations is not true. If the Indian government goes into a deal with the US, it will be honored. It will not be vetoed by some guy the Indians did not elect. If the USA agrees and India agrees, then it exists. However, if India agrees with everyone in the UN except a veto holder, then India gets nothing regardless of what they vote for. I am not refering to a perfect, nominal, ideal, futuristic UN. I am talking about the UN as it exists at this moment, which is relevant to the context of this discussion as much as the current existence of the US system at this moment in time, is.

As I said, you’re making the “might is right” argument here.

Again, you’re free to replace the might is right argument with another version to your liking, but that is how it exists right now, at this time, in this state of reality. If you have another state of reality you’d like to push, go ahead. There is nothing inherently wrong with might is right, because no nation has been right without also being victorious. No nation, no person, nobody in the HISTORY of the human race has failed and then said “oh, I got it right so who cares”. Getting it right and failing is not mutually inclusive. It is not might that matters, it is victory, might simply facilitates victory. So in essence, victory makes right, to the victor goes the spoils.

If you want to deny and characterize the world we have \ today as some other type of system, a utopia perhaps, you’re free to do so. But you should refrain from advocating your arguments ad nauseam because they don’t become more efficacious as timely repetitions go on.

By the same logic, then, in the USA, the wealthy (who pay a higher share of the total taxes collected by the government) should have veto power over legislation in the US Congress and the US Senate?

Again,my argument is not to argue whether the USA should or should not have a veto. My argument is that if you seek to replace the system as it exists today, you need to shell out some serious money. This is true of the US as well, if the Democrats want to win and change the way things are done, they will have to committ a SERIOUS amount of money to defense and other things. You miss the point if you try to transplant the UN veto to the American system. Like I stated, the US system has check and balances the UN does not have, obviously it would be stupid to transplant the UN’s faulty and bug ridden system to one that actually works, in the USA.

So no, it is not by my logic, but rather by yours in the context of transplanting the UN’s faulty veto system to the US. The President has a veto, because all citizens elect him through direct population and proportional representation. This has little or nothing to do with the UN.

Thanks for making your viewpoint about democracy quite clear.

Thanks for making a straw man out of my arguments, but you should stop doing that if you wish to continue to use logic. You do understand what logic is, correct, and what a straw man is? Just to clarify, but a straw man is something you create by using your logic, and call it as having originated from my argument, then having dashed this straw man creation of yours, you then state that you now claim victory over my argument. But in the end, my argument still stands, regardless of the illusionary sleight of handle performed.

> You’re saying the humans in the
> UN are going to naturally look
> out for the interests of the people,
> when they work for the leader of
> that nation, a lot of times which
> holds absolute totalitarian power
> over the people, eh?

Please re-read carefully what I had written in my original post. I had written (notice the italicized part):

“Likewise, the citizens of every country (at least, countries that democratically elect their governments, such as India or France or the USA) have some say in UN decisions.”

> No UN Bureacrat ever lost a job
> because his policies hurt the
> people of Congo, India, or any
> other citizen of a UN body member.

Bureaucrats do not set policies. Bureaucrats execute or implement policies. Policy decisions at the UN are made not by the bureaucracy, but are made by the UN Secretary-General, who is elected, or voted on (through resolutions) by bodies within the UN such as the General Assembly, which consists of representatives of member countries.

The UN, of course, is greatly undemocratic because certain powerful countries have veto power, and can thus thwart the general will of the memeber countries. Obviously, it can be made much more democratic. Nevertheless, as I said before, the UN is a good start.

> Why would Indians believe the
> UN would function appropriately
> as a world government?

I never said that the UN is perfect. What I said was that, compared to a scenario in which the USA effectively functions as a world government, a scenario in which the UN functions as a world government is much more democratic for, say, a citizen of India. Why? Because an Indian citizen has at least some say in policy decisions at UN (through the representative sent to the General Assembly by the Indian government which the Indian citizen democratically elected) whereas the Indian citizen has absolutely no say in policy decisions made by the US government. This should be obvious.

>I don’t say whether it should
> or should not, I only state
> that this is the system that
> exists at the moment. Take it
> or go to another planet. You
> can input another IRS system
> and another IRS head if you
> can prove you’re as powerful,
> as broad reaching, as effective
> in terms of enforcement, as
> the former IRS agency.

As I said, you’re making the “might is right” argument here.

> Obviously you can have America’s
> veto in the UN, if you pay for
> America’s dues with your own
> money. We pay around 30 to 40%
> of the total UN budget. In a
> company, that is a hefty
> percentage of the interests.

By the same logic, then, in the USA, the wealthy (who pay a higher share of the total taxes collected by the government) should have veto power over legislation in the US Congress and the US Senate? After all, the wealthy in the US pay for a large share of the US budget, through their taxes. Thanks for making your viewpoint about democracy quite clear.

The point is that national or international policy-making bodies are not companies, and should not be run like ones.

> Not enough to be controlling,
> but then again, the UN is
> controlled by nobody, except
> perhaps the bureacrats like Kofi
> Annan and his “appointees”.

The UN Secretary General is not a “bureaucrat” for the same reason that George W. Bush is not a “bureaucrat” — they are elected. The Secretary-General’s position is an elected one.

> The US can and could destroy every
> nation’s ability to trade simply
> by authorizing Full Unrestricted
> Submarine Warfare. So if you believe
> our land forces have put a stretch
> upon the power, and that this is
> the reason the US is restricted from
> toppling governments, then I have
> to say you’re not seeing the full
> picture. We can argue about whether
> the ground grunts of the US are
> stretched, but obviously the US
> Navy and carriers and air force are
> not stretched, so if the US is
> creatign such anarchy and
> destruction as you envision, then
> we have to ask why there is no
> such destruction from UScarriers
> and submarines.

The US navy did in fact mine Nicaragua’s harbors (in direct violation of international law) during the eighties, when Nicaragua was ruled by the Sandinistas. For this the USA was condemned by the World Court at the Hague, and the US simply ignored the ruling of the World Court:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE2DA1F38F935A25756C0A962948260&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fI%2fInternational%20Court%20of%20Justice

The New York Times
May 16, 1984

Jurists Criticize U.S.
REUTERS

The International Commission of Jurists today condemned the decision by the United States not to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice on matters relating to Latin America. The United States move was announced April 6, before a ruling by the World Court last Friday that the United States should stop attempts to blockade or mine Nicaraguan ports.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE2DA1F38F935A25756C0A962948260&sec=&pagewanted=print

> The instability and anarchy you
> speak of, does not exist in this
> world

I would argue that Iran’s deciding to pursue the nuclear option (a destabilizing factor) is itself an example of the instability being unleashed on the world as a result of US policies. How so? The US had two countries it was very hostile towards — Iraq and North Korea. Of these, N. Korea had nuclear weapons while Iraq did not have them. The US went unilaterally after Iraq but not after N. Korea. Obviously, this made Iran (another “enemy” of the USA) believe that, if it can acquire nuclear weapons, it is less likely that the US wouldn’t attack it. So, it is now going for nuclear weapons. If, instead of behaving unilaterally, the US had acted multilaterally and in accordance with international law, this instability would have been much less likely to have arisen.

> In conclusion, the alternative
> I see is the world as it is
> currently. Now it could be
> better, but it is not the
> pre-apocalypse state of affairs
> that you described, however.

Not right now, but it is likely to happen in a few years’ time. Time will tell.

However, (s)he votes in Indian elections, and the elected Indian government sends an Indian representative to the UN. Thus, an Indian citizen has some say in UN decisions (or at least, in the General Assembly’s decisions, because the Security Council, of course, is made up of an exclusive club of only five or six countries).

Without checks and balances, this doesn’t matter. No UN Bureacrat ever lost a job because his policies hurt the people of Congo, India, or any other citizen of a UN body member. You’re saying the humans in the UN are going to naturally look out for the interests of the people, when they work for the leader of that nation, a lot of times which holds absolute totalitarian power over the people, eh? Where’s the check and balances that the US system has to ensure that elected representatives don’t use their power to screw the system? Where’s the check and balances in nations like Syria, North Korea, and Egypt that says the citizen’s interests are protected in the UN? There are no guarantees, what is more important to note, is that the UN doesn’t even pretend to offer a guarantee that it will look out for the interests of the constituency of their member bodies.

Now, for an Indian citizen, it is obviously desirable that the UN, rather than the US, be the “world’s IRS and enforcer”, as you call it;

That is neither obvious nor desirable. You lack justification for this belief, let alone saying this is a belief held honestly and justifiably by Indians. Why would Indians believe the UN would function appropriately as a world government?

and in fact US policy is (theoretically) not accountable to anyone but US citizens who elect the US government, there is absolutely no logic for the US to take on this role.

Here we have the differences spelled out between government by decree and secret police, which is the UN, compared to the US system which is of free trade and individuals being empowered to make deals.

While the UN governmental-bureacracy makes deals for the people of the world without checks upon their power, without being voted in, and without many other liberal democratic traditions like I don’t know, one nation one vote or one people one vote. China and India has like 2/5ths of the world population, if not more combined. Yet China has a veto and India does not. This means the UN represents Indians, eh? No, I believe not.

As for the US system, it is about individual transactions and deals. Two nations, two people, talk to each other and agree amicably on a deal. The government stays out of these deals, usually.

That is why India gets more representation and fairness by dealing one on one with the US< rather than having the UN represent them. Simply because the US recognizes India's power and population and legitimacy, while the UN recognizes India as just another 3rd world country without a veto power.

So your argument should be reversed. India should deal with the US 1 to 1 because the US can represent India’s interests in true proportion to India’s needs and rights, than the UN has and could.

Again, Indians have a say in their government. Their government determines the agreement, whether status of forces or another kind, that is existent between the government and people of India and the government and people of the United States.

It is infinitely more democratic for the UN to perform this role, because every country in the world has a say in the UN’s policies

It is not more democratic when 500,000,000 people have 5 votes compared to the 50 votes 50,000,000 people have. One person, one vote, one time. That is the basis of democracy, regardless of what kind or variation. Describing the UN as democratic redefines democracy, which is not justified by the reasoning or lack of it. Again check and balances, no taxation without representation. If you have 5 representatives to their 50, and your pop is greater than theirs, then it isn’t fair to say that you have “real representation”.

it should (unilaterally) act as the global policeman and enforcer,

I don’t say whether it should or should not, I only state that this is the system that exists at the moment. Take it or go to another planet. You can input another IRS system and another IRS head if you can prove you’re as powerful, as broad reaching, as effective in terms of enforcement, as the former IRS agency. Obviously you can have America’s veto in the UN, if you pay for America’s dues with your own money. We pay around 30 to 40% of the total UN budget. In a company, that is a hefty percentage of the interests. Not enough to be controlling, but then again, the UN is controlled by nobody, except perhaps the bureacrats like Kofi Annan and his “appointees”.

If you don’t want the US Navy patrolling the seas and preventing piracy from taking 50% of your sea borne transport, then you can pay for your own Navy of course. As you know, when the US Navy is not allowed in Chinese and Indonesian waters, Somali and Indonesian pirates have a great and bountiful harvest.

The problem is that (apart from being profoundly undemocratic for the reasons pointed out, because US foreign policy is obviously not accountable to the rest of the world’s citizens), such a policy leads to sheer anarchy and total breakdown of world order.

The world order looks pretty good from the perspective of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and North Korea. Iran after all violated international law by going onto the sovereign territory of the United States and taking our embassy staff hostage, and then doing nothing to ensure their release. The instability and anarchy you speak of, does not exist in this world, because the enemies of the United States who have committed crimes against the US, have rebuffed US interests and deals like Turkey, are still relatively unharmed. The US can and could destroy every nation’s ability to trade simply by authorizing Full Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. So if you believe our land forces have put a stretch upon the power, and that this is the reason the US is restricted from toppling governments, then I have to say you’re not seeing the full picture. We can argue about whether the ground grunts of the US are stretched, but obviously the US Navy and carriers and air force are not stretched, so if the US is creatign such anarchy and destruction as you envision, then we have to ask why there is no such destruction from UScarriers and submarines.

it leads to a state of affairs in which every nation can take it upon itself to act unilaterally (just like you advocate the US as doing)

Again, if they want the capacity to project power and be able to tell people what to do, then they are welcome to spend 500 billion on defense like the US does. You get what you pay for after all. Americans are tired of subsidizing the world’s defense, so yes we’d prefer someone else spend their blood and treasure (like China) ensuring peace and stability in the world, free of economic and military corruption.

The US finds it far more advantageous to deal with people and nations honestly, rather than telling them what to do. It takes too much resources to Empire build, we’d rather spend those resources on a mobile army rather than occupationary stationary garrison force.

So, there’s going to be nothing to stop, say, India from unilaterally bombing Pakistan (which it may see as a legitimate security threat) or for Pakistan to do the same to India.

So why didn’t they exchange nukes because of Kashmir? Did the UN stop them? Did the US? So what made them stop, if what you say is true that nothing is stopping them from launching bombs and nukes?

Pursued to its logical end, such a state of affairs also sets off uncontrolled arms races throughout the planet.

Like I said, anyone can spend money on defense, but they won’t and they aren’t. So your theory of a world wide arms race, doesn’t cut it. France could be spending mroe on defense to match the US, since they wanted a EU balancing force to the US and NATO, but they aren’t. So your theory isn’t accurate even in predicting current events.

The alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

In conclusion, the alternative I see is the world as it is currently. Now it could be better, but it is not the pre-apocalypse state of affairs that you described, however.

you are absolutely going to be branded a troll if you continue to use facts, logic and suggesting solutions that don’t involve explosives.

As I’ve been reminded on several occasions it is neo’s blog and she has deemed such things inappropriate and worse, psychologically unsound. Challenging the party line is for the insane only.

Now, get a grip.

>> However, notice that no one country
>> has any right, under international
>> law, to unilaterally take upon itself
>> that role: that role properly belongs
>> to the UN.

Ymarskar replied:

> We can argue about what belongs to
> whom, but the UN ain’t one of the land
> owners here, they don’t get a vote
> because I don’t get to vote in my reps
> in there.

Think of it from the point of view of a country like, say, India.

An Indian citizen doesn’t (obviously) vote in US elections.

However, (s)he votes in Indian elections, and the elected Indian government sends an Indian representative to the UN. Thus, an Indian citizen has some say in UN decisions (or at least, in the General Assembly’s decisions, because the Security Council, of course, is made up of an exclusive club of only five or six countries). Likewise, the citizens of every country (at least, countries that democratically elect their governments, such as India or France or the USA) have some say in UN decisions.

Now, for an Indian citizen, it is obviously desirable that the UN, rather than the US, be the “world’s IRS and enforcer”, as you call it; since the Indian citizen has no say in US policy, and in fact US policy is (theoretically) not accountable to anyone but US citizens who elect the US government, there is absolutely no logic for the US to take on this role.

It is infinitely more democratic for the UN to perform this role, because every country in the world has a say in the UN’s policies, and citizens of every country which democratically elects its government (such as India, France and USA) have some say in US policy.

What you’re advocating is a “might is right” policy: just because the US has a powerful military, it should (unilaterally) act as the global policeman and enforcer, unilaterally deciding which country to attack and when, violate international law at will, etc, etc.

The problem is that (apart from being profoundly undemocratic for the reasons pointed out, because US foreign policy is obviously not accountable to the rest of the world’s citizens), such a policy leads to sheer anarchy and total breakdown of world order. Pursued to its logical conclusion, it leads to a state of affairs in which every nation can take it upon itself to act unilaterally (just like you advocate the US as doing) to protect what it sees as its own interests. So, there’s going to be nothing to stop, say, India from unilaterally bombing Pakistan (which it may see as a legitimate security threat) or for Pakistan to do the same to India. Pursued to its logical end, such a state of affairs also sets off uncontrolled arms races throughout the planet. In short, you end up with utter chaos. Unless, of course, you have a Pax Americana, a global superpower subjugating every other country by sheer military might.

So, this scenario ultimately either leads to utter global chaos and breakdown, or to a global dictatorship in which the US rules all other countries by force. The former scenario is undesirable for obvious reasons. I would argue that the latter situation, too, is undesirable for patriotic, freedom-loving, US citizens, because a government that gets used to ruling by force externally, always sooner or later turns that force internally to repress its own citizens.

So, in the interest not only of non-US citizens but also in the interest of US citizens, I would argue, multilateralism via international institutions is the only civilized alternative. The UN is not an ideal body (in fact too often it is forced to go along with the US and its allies), but it is better than nothing. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

1:06 AM, June 19, 2006

Yeah sorry about that. OCD probably. Or it could be the weather. Better ask Sally, she’s the resident shrink isn’t she?

>> Other countries where positive views [of
>> the US] dropped significantly include
>> India (56 percent, down from 71 percent).

> The NYT doesn’t give you the link to
> Pew’s results on India, the new results.

Here’s the link to the new (2006) Pew Global Opinion Project report, from where the New York Times gets the above information.

http://pewresearch.org/reports/?ReportID=27

From the report:

Pew Global Attitudes Project Report
America’s Image Slips
June 13, 2006

The United States’ global image has slipped again, even as Americans and publics of U.S. allies express common concerns over Iran’s nuclear program and the Hamas Party’s victory in Palestinian elections. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the U.S., not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing worries over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, America’s presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.

The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among nearly 17,000 people in the United States and 14 other nations from March 31-May 14, finds:

* Positive views of the United States have declined sharply in Spain (from 41% to 23%), India (71% to 56%), and Turkey (23% to 12%). Even in Indonesia, where U.S. tsunami aid helped lift America’s image in 2005, favorable opinions of the U.S. have fallen (from 38% to 30%).

* Support for the U.S.-led war on terror, with few exceptions, is either flat or has declined; confidence in President Bush has fallen ever lower in Europe; and majorities in most countries believe that the U.S. will not achieve its objectives in Iraq.

[..]

Read the full report here.

NB France 25

Indonesia 96

India 71

China 59

http://ww1.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2002/2002.08.28.cpi.en.html

are you seriously suggesting that Indonesia, China and India are less corrupt than France?

Jeeeeezusswept.

I don’t recall casting a vote for my representative in the UN. Do You? Does anyone? Since when did “rights” come from dictators, bureacrats, and elitist aristocrats anyway? The UN is a kind of retro-liberal function of 20th century nuclear annihilation. Or the possibility of thus. It is not representative of anyone, it has no legitimacy in terms of personal liberties, and it sure as heck ain’t got a right to wipe their own arse without the funding of the nations they are parasitic upon.

Damn, I knew I shouldn’t have read his post. Oh well.

Ymar you voted for your president and congress didn’t you? If yes, then you have entrusted them to nominate your representatives at the UN. If not, you have no right to complain at all, about a body of which your country is a constituent part.

If you want the UN reformed then perhaps you need to start asking your own government and politicians why they’ve been blocking meaningful reform for decades.

yrmdwnkr you probably dont realise how funny this comment is. Especially as you say the USA is some big international policeman.

however wikipedia is there to help you
“The Sword of Damocles is a frequently used allusion to this tale, epitomizing the insecurity of those with great power due to the possibility of that power being taken away suddenly, or, more generally, any feeling of impending doom.”

as ever your ill informed buffoonery is most welcome.

p.s. is there anything that you do actually know about?

I don’t recall casting a vote for my representative in the UN. Do You? Does anyone? Since when did “rights” come from dictators, bureacrats, and elitist aristocrats anyway? The UN is a kind of retro-liberal function of 20th century nuclear annihilation. Or the possibility of thus. It is not representative of anyone, it has no legitimacy in terms of personal liberties, and it sure as heck ain’t got a right to wipe their own arse without the funding of the nations they are parasitic upon.

We can argue about what belongs to whom, but the UN ain’t one of the land owners here, they don’t get a vote because I don’t get to vote in my reps in there.

Your theory that it’s the “IRS”-like behavior of the US which is causing this decline in its image cannot, therefore, be accurate, because the US has been behaving this way for a very long time now.

Any organization run by humans is not going to act the “same” every few decades. Therefore Carter let the pro-American and progressive Shah to be overthrown in Iran, because that was Carter’s IRS auditing powers of bankruptcy. A lot of things like this happen, because the humans in the bureacracy change, so the breaucratic policies change as well. But over all, the goal of the IRS and the US has not changed fundamentally that much.

It makes little sense for people to like America less now that the IRS is punishing the rich dictators and tyrants instead of in the past when America punished babies and women through starving them through Oil and Food, while Saddam still gets the oil money through kickbacks. Little logic there.

In essence, people are afraid of the US because now they understand the US is no paper tiger. No one is safe now from the IRS, so their dread and fear and need to destroy and corrupt the IRS now becomes more prioritized than say when the IRS was sleeping at the wheel. When the US reaches its arms across half the world and smites two so called “sovereign nations”, then everyone else has to start wondering “why can’t we do the same thing just as effortlessly, why do we have to struggle to just maintain 15,000 fighting forces?”. That is what they ask, and their answer becomes “they can’t do it because they are weak, like a red belt vs a ninth level black belt, it just ain’t fair”. This is why they are less “favorable” towards the US, which is sort of like another way of asking “do you think the US can and will kick your nation’s arse and take away your toys”. Of course they’re going to fill in “unfavorable” after seeing the might of the dragon unleashed, the furious tiger and the whatever nature symbols are available to be used. People in the US are “unfavorable” towards Congress and government because they are confiscating people’s home without breaking a sweat. Does this mean people were against confiscating other people’s private property through Emminent Domain before, just because they weren’t worried about the government doing so? No, by all means, not. They weren’t worried because the Constitution prevented the government from confiscating people’s homes, so people were favorable and not in fear of their homes being taken away. However, once the government acquires this power and does it so effortlessly, then people are not in favor of such things. This illustrates the basic philosophy.

The US is not confiscating people’s property, we are in fact auditing their property and determining what is fair and what is illegal. The US is not a world government, the US is just an enforcement agency and bureacracy, like the IRS. We are not voted in, but then neither is the UN. People don’t like this because… well, because.

Other countries where positive views [of the US] dropped significantly include India (56 percent, down from 71 percent).

The NYT doesn’t give you the link to Pew’s results on India, the new results.

What Pew says is this.

III: Opinions of U.S. Policies

Majorities in only three other countries now share that opinion; India, where 63% say the U.S. pays a great deal or a fair amount of attention to their country’s interests, Indonesia (59%), and China (53%). In line with the general upsurge of positive feelings toward the U.S. in both India and Indonesia, these percentages are up sharply from past Pew Global Attitudes surveys.

So basically, if countries don’t practice corruption and exploitation, they see the IRS as a necessary enforcement agency. So they tend to see no problems with the US’s policy. France, on the other hand, has boat loads of corruption and huge percentage of people who believe US policy does not consider French immunity. China is weird in that they do exploit people, so they must consider the US a weak little step-child that actually considers other weaker nation’s concerns.

An interesting stat is what people in different countries believe most influences American policy. Go to Influences on U.S. Policy “the graph”

France says 70 to 23 that Saddam’s removal did not make the world safer. Obviously that is true, for the French, since Saddam’s removal cut France’s asset production down, which made it unsafe for Paris given the riots.

The reason why people don’t like America isn’t because of people like me, it is because America acts like the IRS and nobody likes the IRS, not even the IRS.

There’s a flaw in your reasoning. The USA has been acting (assuming your perspective and using your vocabulary for the moment) as the “IRS” at least since the 1950s. However, notice that no one country has any right, under international law, to unilaterally take upon itself that role: that role properly belongs to the UN, which is why military intervention in another country is legal only when sanctioned by the UN). But be that as it may, the US has in fact been acting unilaterally like a self-appointed “IRS” for a long time now. Now the point is, the sharp decline in the USA’s image in other countries is, however, something very recent. Your theory that it’s the “IRS”-like behavior of the US which is causing this decline in its image cannot, therefore, be accurate, because the US has been behaving this way for a very long time now. Why the sudden, recent decline (see below)?

The New York Times reports:

June 14, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/world/14pew.html

Global Image of the U.S. Is Worsening, Survey Finds

By BRIAN KNOWLTON

WASHINGTON, June 13 — [T]he global image of America has slipped further, even among people in some countries closely allied with the United States, a new opinion poll has found.

Favorable views of the United States dropped sharply over the past year in Spain, where only 23 percent said they had a positive opinion, down from 41 percent last year, according to the survey. It was done in 15 nations, including the United States, this spring by the Washington-based Pew Research Center.

Other countries where positive views [of the US] dropped significantly include India (56 percent, down from 71 percent).
[..]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/world/14pew.html

Now it’s back to the central commentary position. Richie?