History

[Hotpoint]

Re: Re: Re: Re: History

Originally posted by knobbs
I don't misinterperet a thing. It's just a bull**** argument.

What a well thought out reasoned responce

Please factually dispute the notion that Democracy means the person with the most votes wins. I'm not saying that Bush Jnr is not the legitimate US President as under your laws he clearly is I'm pointing out that the fact he got less votes means the US system is not a Democracy but an Elected Republic

Originally posted by knobbs

If the US is not a "Democracy in the strictest sense" it is still the closest thing the world has to one.

I suggest you do more research. For a start I draw your attention to the fact that the worlds most Democratic Country is actually Switzerland. Any government decision can be put to a referendum and overturned by the people in a direct vote, now that's democracy!

Originally posted by knobbs

Last I checked, there were no laws that limited a President's power when depending on how many votes they got. A President's job is to get **** done. What you and others like you are saying is that because he did not get the popular vote (or, even dumber, and OVERWHELMING portion of the popular vote) the guy has no right to do anything. You would make him a lame duck.

I never said any such thing I just remarked that he does not hold a democratic mandate. His legitimacy as US President in not really in question legally. The point is that it is hypocritical to talk democracy when you got into power on less votes

Originally posted by knobbs

The fact of the matter is this choice (and, coincidentally, nearly everything this president has done) has been supported by a majority of the population of this country. Democracy in action, my friend

What has one issue to do with another? If Al Gore had been in power at a time when national unity had been so strong the majority would have supported him too. People rally round the flag in times of crisis, that doesn't mean a democratic mandate exists!

Originally posted by knobbs

If everything is supposed to be decided democratically, then it shouldn't matter who the President is, you should just do what the majority of the citizens of the country want, right? Well the majority of the citizens of the country agree that we should go to war with Iraq. But wait--you don't agree so all that goes out the window.

At what point did I say everything should be decided democratically? I merely said that the outcome of the last US election was not decided Democratically

Personally I subscribe to the model of Representative Democracy that can be found on both sides of the Atlantic rather than a more anarchic model of direct democracy. I just maintain, as you do apparently do not, that the Representatives themselves should be elected democratically and then left to get on with it for four years.

Originally posted by knobbs

It is unreasonable to hold a vote for every decision, so we vote for those leaders that share our concerns and views and let them vote on those ideas. That sounds like the most realistic way to carry out a democracy to me.

Realistic yes but it would only pass muster as a Democracy if the electoral system ensured that the representative really did have an electoral mandate before giving them the power to make decisions in your name. You may choose collectively to abdicate your decisions to another but surely that individual should be at least decided by the largest minority if not ideally a true majority?

Argue otherwise

 

[Baca Loco]

Re: Re: Re: Pot and kettle

Originally posted by Hotpoint
1--Well first of all it is in the long-term interests of all of these states to have a stable global system in which to operate. If the United States is allowed to dominate
2--and ignore laws it does not agree with just because of it's military superiority then we not not have order we have anarchy

3--Secondly each of these states wishes to have influence in the world but this is threatened by US Military (if not economic) supremacy. All would benefit from a United States that had less ability to steer events in its own favour

4--Thirdly France and Germany are democracies and the vast majority of the people in those countries are opposed to the war, this will tend to mean that Politicians looking towards the next election will seek to find favour by following the public mood

5--Fourthly China in particular is attempting to expand its influence globally and could do without the United States having a strategic foothold on every continent

6--Was ever a man so misjudged?

1--so stability over the last half century has been predicated on a balance of power, right, and since the countering forces no longer exist they must be reconstructed to re-establish balance? Is that the argument?
2--which laws would those be?
3--just what the rest of Europe wants--a dominant Germany in European affairs. Or the rise of a modern Russia. And just how does a future free Iraq benefit the U.S. over anyone else? You mean the people might actually be grateful? That's not what history says.
4--you mean guys like Jacques Iraq, who has a thirty year history of dealing with Saddam? And of course it's the people's will that's paramount in such good democracies as France and Germany. That's a large pile even for you. And as the first guy to routinely remind everyone the US sold arms to Saddam 25 years ago apparently the German and French violations of existing UN mandates in selling Saddam tens of millions of dollars worth of dual use and military gear in the last ten years isn't worth mentioning. Nor the tens of billions in future contracts to Elf and others. Nor do you mention the large percentage of Muslims living in both countries particularly France or the French history of appeasing terrorists dating back to the Sixties when their own little experiment in jackboot imperialism failed in Algeria.
And you failed to mention Russia at all which is in the same boat as France when it comes to money to be lost and influence that will fade.
5--and is that a good or a bad thing?
6--misjudged? Naw. Transparent, more like.

 

[le-pig]

children play nicely

 

[Hotpoint]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot and kettle

Originally posted by Baca Loco
1--so stability over the last half century has been predicated on a balance of power, right, and since the countering forces no longer exist they must be reconstructed to re-establish balance? Is that the argument?

You could call it checks and balances. Without a counterweight to its power any state will tend to pursue its own interests unilaterally to the point at which it manages to unite disparate oppositional forces against it

The Post Cold-War World is far less stable and for the most part far less safe. Power theorists maintain that the most stable international system is Bipolar followed by a Multipolar arrangement of shifting alliances/allegiances. A unipolar situation is the least stable of all as there are no checks at all

Originally posted by Baca Loco

2--which laws would those be?

For a start how about the Geneva Convention and UN Charter. Or for that matter the International Criminal Court, Landmine Treaty, ABM Treaty, WTO, Kyoto, rules concerning the imprisonment of foreign nationals etc etc

I'm not saying that many countries don't also break the rules it's just that they don't tend to go on to argue for rule-of-law quite so vociferously

Originally posted by Baca Loco

3--just what the rest of Europe wants--a dominant Germany in European affairs. Or the rise of a modern Russia. And just how does a future free Iraq benefit the U.S. over anyone else? You mean the people might actually be grateful? That's not what history says.

With Britain, France and Italy as potential counterweights Germany could never be as dominant as it was in the past. As for Russia after being stripped of the rest of the Soviet States and barely solvent it simply does not have the potential to dominate the rest of Europe.

As for Iraq the currently favoured US plan is to install Tommy Franks as a latter-day Douglas MacArthur with an American General de-facto dictator of Iraq as MacArthur was in post-war Japan

History shows that worked very much to Americas advantage

Originally posted by Baca Loco

4--you mean guys like Jacques Iraq, who has a thirty year history of dealing with Saddam? And of course it's the people's will that's paramount in such good democracies as France and Germany. That's a large pile even for you. And as the first guy to routinely remind everyone the US sold arms to Saddam 25 years ago apparently the German and French violations of existing UN mandates in selling Saddam tens of millions of dollars worth of dual use and military gear in the last ten years isn't worth mentioning. Nor the tens of billions in future contracts to Elf and others. Nor do you mention the large percentage of Muslims living in both countries particularly France or the French history of appeasing terrorists dating back to the Sixties when their own little experiment in jackboot imperialism failed in Algeria.

When did I say that France, Germany or indeed Russia were acting for moralities sake? It is a happy coincidence that the peoples will here coincides with the percieved interests of the governments of the three powers

Also I did say I could have continued giving reasons. What did you want? A doctoral thesis listing every single reason?

Originally posted by Baca Loco

5--and is that a good or a bad thing?

Well it's certainly bad for America given that relations between the two states aren't really all that rosy

I would personally rather the PRC kept its attentions in East Asia but if it is the only counterweight to a destabilising US Hyperpower then it might be best if they took more of a Global Role. Ideally I'd like a unified Europe to step up to the plate though

The beauty of a multipolar world would be that if any one of the major players stepped out of line the others would tend to gang up to put them back down. I can foresee for example in forty years or so a US/EU Alliance acting to keep China in check

Originally posted by Baca Loco

6--misjudged? Naw. Transparent, more like.

Given that you rarely seem to correctly interpret my outlook or opinion on things I can't be all that transparent

 

[PiranahBLVFG3]

yawn!!!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[headrock6]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot and kettle

Originally posted by Hotpoint



For a start how about the Geneva Convention and UN Charter. Or for that matter the International Criminal Court, Landmine Treaty, ABM Treaty, WTO, Kyoto, rules concerning the imprisonment of foreign nationals etc etc

1)Geneva Convention-Woulnt you think its about time to bring the law of war into line with current realities??Israel is acccused of war crimes for its operations in Jenin and Nablus in response to suicide bombings..In both cities,terrorists positioned themselves among civilian populations yet Amnesty International saw no violation of International Law in these arrangements..With the way the the convention is today,it is designed to deny the U.S. and other countries targeted by terrorism the right to effectively defend themselves..

2)International Criminal Court-Now while the ICC was supposed to prosecute persons charged with war crimes,crimes against humanity,and genocide,we started to see supporters of the court wanting to prosecute drug trafficing,serious threats to the environment,and committing outrages on personal dignity..Plus,many of the safegaurds Americans have under the U.S. Constitution would be suspended if they were brought before the court..Double jeopardy,the right to trial by an impartial jury,and the right of the accused to confront the witness against him would have all be thrown out the window..The ICC eventually would have opened a Pandoras Box of legal mischief that would have been hard to overcome for a long time..

3)Landmine Treaty-No nation today devotes more expertise or resources to the landmine problem today than the U.S. does..Last year alone we spent 80 million dollars(almost as much as the rest of the world combined) in de-mining efforts throughout the world..Unfortunately,we wouldnt sign a treaty that wouldnt give us enought time to devise alternate technology,and the need to keep anti-tank mines..The U.S. agreed to 3 of the 5 sticking points in Oslo yet the other nations wouldnt compromise on the other 2..Are we really expected to protect South Korea and yet be asked to take away the major defensive measures in place without reasonable time to put in place an alternative measure??

4)Kyoto-The approach taken under the Kyoto Protocol would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and 4.9 million jobs..Any climate policy must work within normal economic activity,and not cripple it as the Europeans would do..Kyoto was anti growth and that just wasnt acceptable to Bush or the American people..

5)ABM Treaty-Another outdated treaty that thankfully was done away with..Is it that hard for people to understand that the Soviet Union is gone and Russia is not an enemy??It,like the Geneva convention,doesnt reflect the strategic realities of today..Im sure your going to bombard me with questions about another nuclear arms race and upsetting the nuclear balance of power,but I dont think if China decided to launch thier nukes at us,we'd have any chance in hell to stop it with the new anti missile defense system..The ABM treaty didnt protect us from the threat that exists today which isnt China or Russia..Its rogue nations who are developing long range missiles that when aquired,wouldnt hesitate to throw them at us when they do...

 

[Hotpoint]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot and kettle

Whilst I realise that the US feels it has good reasons for what it does that does not give it the right to unilaterally decide which rules it will follow, nor is it an advisable long-term strategy

If everybody behaved the same way there would be anarchy! It is also counterproductive to opt in and out at will as to do so means you lose the reputation you may have as a fair player

For example. Why should a country sign a treaty with the USA if it is American policy to abrogate any treaty they sign if it becomes inconvenient or contary to their future policies? Surely a state should always strive to project an image their word can be trusted?

To address your points one by one:

Vis a vis the Geneva convention the main sticking point here relates to the detainment of suspects at Guantanamo. Either they are civilians criminals, in which case they should be put on trial, or they are soldiers in which case they should be treated as POW's. There is no legal standing for the current situation and the US in in breach of the 2nd Convention

Whilst I realise that the US regards the ICC as infringing on its sovereignty why should American soveriegnty be sacrosanct whilst you reserve the right to interfere with that of Iraq? Is the only reason because "might is right"?

With regards to the Landmine Treaty I personally thought it was a flawed idea anyone bought on by sacarine moralising, however just because a Treaty is flawed does that give any one nation the right to opt out? North Korea doesn't like the NPT but does that mean they are right to opt out?

The implementation of Kyoto would indeed have hit America hard but that is just because the USA is by far the worlds biggest producer of Greenhouse Pollution. Why should the rest of the world have to put up with the consequences of America abandoning the treaty? No sense of global responsibility?

It is not the fact that the ABM Treaty was outdated but rather the fact that the US thought it had the right to unilaterally abandon it with or without Moscows opinion. In the end Putin said okay so it's a moot point, but if he had said "no way" you'd have still broken the treaty anyway. It is vital to international stability that states keep to the treaties they sign, Britain went to war in 1914 on the basis of a Treaty signed with Belgium in 1830, that kind of thing gives us the reputation as a nation that can be trusted to keep its word. Don't you think America would only benefit if it were perceived as a nation that was trustworthy and consistant?

 

[Fab81]

A point of view from France...

One problem is why USA have the right of an unilateral action ?

Why can you uniteraly do a war abroad if your security is threatened ?
If the motives of that war is terrorism, then its only a series of war that begin and not only one, since Iraq is not the only country to "possibily" threaten USA like Syria, Iran...

So if we agree with that war we agree with all the others to come..

Or, the goal is really an another one.... And I don't think about petrol...

Anyway the policy of USA on that war is really badly perceived France, and in most of the world I think...

And I am really disapointed for American people to be lead by such a governement that doesn't seem to be really aware about possible consequences of this war.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[headrock6]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot and kettle

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Whilst I realise that the US feels it has good reasons for what it does that does not give it the right to unilaterally decide which rules it will follow, nor is it an advisable long-term strategy

If everybody behaved the same way there would be anarchy! It is also counterproductive to opt in and out at will as to do so means you lose the reputation you may have as a fair player

For example. Why should a country sign a treaty with the USA if it is American policy to abrogate any treaty they sign if it becomes inconvenient or contary to their future policies? Surely a state should always strive to project an image their word can be trusted?

Unfortunately,like so many,your basing your whole opinion of U.S. policy on a few Treatys that the U.S felt werent feasible anymore..Im not debating that that we shouldnt be striving to maintain a trustworthy image,but I can name 200 treatys that we adhere to,to this day..And you know were not breaking those any time soon...9/11 had a nasty effect on the way we view security..Its time the world got used to it..

To address your points one by one:

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Vis a vis the Geneva convention the main sticking point here relates to the detainment of suspects at Guantanamo. Either they are civilians criminals, in which case they should be put on trial, or they are soldiers in which case they should be treated as POW's. There is no legal standing for the current situation and the US in in breach of the 2nd Convention

Your treading on legal ground here which really isnt my forte but I will try my best..We can agree that a POW is entitled to the protections set forth in the Geneva Convention...We can also agree that an unlawful combatant is a fighter who doesnt play by the rules of war and doesnt qualify for the Conventions protection..So now we have to try and figure out if Al Qaeda are POW's..Article IV of the Geneva convention states that members of irregular militias like Al Qaeda qualify for POW status if thier military organization satisfies four criteria:

A)that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
B)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
C)that of carrying arms openly
D)that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

If your gonna tell me that Al Qaeda fits any of these criteria,your insane..They deliberately attemp to blend in with civilians and currently target civilians..They shouldnt have any right under the Geneva Convention yet they get medical treatment,the Quran,and much more..And lets not forget,that Geneva isnt exactly Disneyland..The Taliban is a different story yet can still be argued that they dont deserve POW status either..While they have a tighter command structure,they still dont fit any of the criteria laid out above..The Taliban wasnt even recognized by the U.S. let alone the United nations..Military tribunals will deal with them in time and they will be afforded every right of a U.S. citizen to defend themselves..As of right now,their not an American soil and that a whole other issue...The only reason this whole Gitmo thing scares me is because God only knows what will happen to US troops who are caught in any future war by rogue nations...

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Whilst I realise that the US regards the ICC as infringing on its sovereignty why should American soveriegnty be sacrosanct whilst you reserve the right to interfere with that of Iraq? Is the only reason because "might is right"?

Comparing the two is plain out ridiculous..As a US citizen,im grateful my government fights to ensure my rights throughout the world..I think time has showed this country deals with criminals to the full extent of the law..Its scary when an Al Qaeda planner in germany is convicted of conspiring to carry out 9/11 and the deaths of 3000 people and the max is 15 years..And were infringing on Iraq because they've left us no choice..You dont believe its our fault that war is inevitable do you??

Originally posted by Hotpoint
With regards to the Landmine Treaty I personally thought it was a flawed idea anyone bought on by sacarine moralising, however just because a Treaty is flawed does that give any one nation the right to opt out?

Of course it does..When the live of soldiers depend on the things they want to take away and they wont give them proper time to find a solution,it gives us every right to opt out..If countries cant be reasonable then I saw no reason why we should have signed the treaty..

Originally posted by Hotpoint
The implementation of Kyoto would indeed have hit America hard but that is just because the USA is by far the worlds biggest producer of Greenhouse Pollution. Why should the rest of the world have to put up with the consequences of America abandoning the treaty? No sense of global responsibility?

No one said the EU coudnt ratify Kyoto,which on their own would have to fund all the wealth transfers and economic growth cuts which the protocol envisioned..And dont say no sense of global reponsibility...Our stated goal is to reduce Americas greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years...

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Don't you think America would only benefit if it were perceived as a nation that was trustworthy and consistant?

I think our track record over the last 100 years says it all..Wanna talk about consistency...Heres in my opinion,the 4 greatest military blunders in history..
1)Germany unleashing its subs in 1917
2japan attacking Pearl harbor
3)Soviet Union not accepting our money to keep its nukes out of Europe
4)9/11 attack

Each and every time,someones tried to test our resolve..And each and every time weve stood up and put them right back in place...Id call that consistency...

 

[Hotpoint]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot and kettle

Originally posted by headrock6
Unfortunately,like so many,your basing your whole opinion of U.S. policy on a few Treatys that the U.S felt werent feasible anymore..Im not debating that that we shouldnt be striving to maintain a trustworthy image,but I can name 200 treatys that we adhere to,to this day.. And you know were not breaking those any time soon...9/11 had a nasty effect on the way we view security..Its time the world got used to it..

It's not the fact you continue to adhere to the majority of treaties but rather the fact that you choose not to adhere to them all that's the issue. I know the US thinks it's acting reasonably, the problem you have is that most of the rest of the world disagrees

11/9 has certainly led to a change in US Policy. Initially the sympathy engendered by the events of that day led to widespread pro-american feeling but you managed to throw that security away by seeking military solutions without a cocurrent diplomatic strategy aimed at not pissing everybody else off in the process.

To give a prime example of the piss-poor American Diplomacy of late I'll cite the Steel Tariffs raised against Europe. Not only were these against WTO rules, they were announced at a time when the US was asking for European military assistance in Afganistan. A cartoon in the British media at the time showed Blair standing "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush... whilst the latter stuck a dagger in Blairs back

Originally posted by headrock6
Your treading on legal ground here which really isnt my forte but I will try my best..We can agree that a POW is entitled to the protections set forth in the Geneva Convention...We can also agree that an unlawful combatant is a fighter who doesnt play by the rules of war and doesnt qualify for the Conventions protection..

Well I don't think "Unlawful Combatant" appears anywhere in the conventions but I do know that the 2nd Geneva Convention (bought in after WWII) was designed to expand POW status to irregular units such as the Maquis (French Resistance) who would not fit in with many of the requirements you listed either

In any case if you maintain they are not POW's then they are civil prisoners and should be treated as such. I don't mind you putting them before a US Federal Judge

Originally posted by headrock6
The only reason this whole Gitmo thing scares me is because God only knows what will happen to US troops who are caught in any future war by rogue nations...

Nice to finally hear that from an American. Another thing you might like to think about is the number of foreign nationals (Mexicans in particular) who are imprisoned, and even executed in the USA without being given access to their nations Consul. That is strictly prohibited by Treaty and really annoys a lot of Central/South American states, also it means that if the US doesn't uphold the rule then foreign nations are not strictly obliged to do so either

Originally posted by headrock6
Comparing the two is plain out ridiculous..

Why? In what way is US Sovereignty more important that that of any other nation? Please note I personally agree with the UN mandated no-fly zones and weapons inspectors than infringe Iraqi sovereignty every day I just don't see why if international law is seen by you to overide Iraqi sovereignty why doesn't it overide US Sovereignty as well?

It's gotta be one rule for all or the games rigged and the other players ain't going to want to participate