War on Terrorism: I just don't get it

Originally posted by Azred: [QB]All national leaders lie; this is simply part of life with politics.

i'll repeat what i said to djinn last night: does that make it right? cant the world's most powerful nation ever leave behind a legacy that's better than that?

Originally posted by Azred: [QB]A majority of the American people are so woefully uninformed, though, that they wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face.

oh, i'm with you there. when i first left the states just for a two week holiday, i was shocked at how little i knew about the world. it was even more shocking when i talked to people about it, and discovered just what i was like before i started getting to know the world.

having said that, does an uninformed populace give leaders the right to lie to their people?

Originally posted by Azred: [QB]Unprovoked, most likely. Unnecessary, definitely not.

even if it was necessary (and i dont agree it was), that would sanction unprovoked agression. gulf war 1 and ww2 started that way, and countless other wars that we entered to stop just such tyranny. now that we're on the other side, we've changed the standards?

hypocrisy aside, surely we should hold ourselves to higher standards of behaviour.

[Azred]

Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by Azred: All national leaders lie; this is simply part of life with politics.

i'll repeat what i said to djinn last night: does that make it right? cant the world's most powerful nation ever leave behind a legacy that's better than that?[/QUOTE]No, it doesn't make it right. However, the situation is not likely to change in the near future; for now we must simply accept things as they are and try to bring about better choices.

Originally posted by Sultan: oh, i'm with you there [an uninformed American populace]. when i first left the states just for a two week holiday, i was shocked at how little i knew about the world. it was even more shocking when i talked to people about it, and discovered just what i was like before i started getting to know the world.

All college graduates should live for a year outside the Continental US, even if they move every other month (which wouldn't be a bad idea). This will really round out their education.

Originally posted by Sultan: even if it was necessary (and i dont agree it was), that would sanction unprovoked agression. gulf war 1 and ww2 started that way, and countless other wars that we entered to stop just such tyranny. now that we're on the other side, we've changed the standards? hypocrisy aside, surely we should hold ourselves to higher standards of behaviour.

Yes, we should...but I cannot fight that particular battle alone. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Lofits: Actually, Azred, we don't disagree so much nowadays.

Yes, we do. So there. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Azred: That makes it ok? I have had Muslim friends; they swam in bikinis, drank alcohol, etc. Do those choices makes them not Muslim? The rabid groups are going to self-destruct the entire region.

I never said it was OK, I said it was shocking. Most muslims believe that your actions define your faith and that if you engage yourself in a manner not consistent with the teachings of the Qu'ran, you can not call yourself a muslim.

In the mind of the attackers, the targets were *not* muslims by definition. That's not to defend their actions, but only to put them into perspective.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I'm all for the rule of law, but when the body entrusted to carry out the law becomes unable/unwilling to do so, there's a problem. Chancellor Vallorum, I call for a vote of no confidence.

Now you sound like Judge Moore - I don't agree with the findings of the court, so I'm going to do my own thing anyway.

If we are going to castrate the SC, then we should do so for it's failure to take action against the US/UK when they invaded Iraq, as this shows a bias in the way that the law was administered. Not OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait without cause, is OK for US/UK to invade Iraq without cause.

Is OK for one country to flout UN resolutions, not OK for another country to flout UN resolutions.

A pointless body by virtue of the fact that all of the power of the UN lies with the Security Council, and all of that power lies within the hands of just five nations.


[ 11-14-2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: Now you sound like Judge Moore - I don't agree with the findings of the court, so I'm going to do my own thing anyway.

Not at all, and I don't appreciate the comparrison. Moore challenged the law of the US, his sovereign nation. I am challenging the law of the UN, which is TREATY law, merely CONTRACT law. Contracts can be, and are, broken all the time. There are consequences to breaking a contract, and sometimes one of the parties does real analysis and determines it will accept those consequences. Take the UK/EU choosing to ignore WTO beef-hormone rulings or the US considering ignoring steel rulings, in the instance of the WTO. Moreover, I'm not advocating breaking the rule (I have always said it would have been *nicer* for all if the US had somehow waited for and wrangled approval from the UN) so much as I am advocating *changing* the rules -- which is exactly the appropriate thing to do with a body like the UN, which is akin to a legislature (at base -- I realize that's a simplistic comparrison).

If we are going to castrate the SC, then we should do so for it's failure to take action against the US/UK when they invaded Iraq, as this shows a bias in the way that the law was administered. Not OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait without cause, is OK for US/UK to invade Iraq without cause.

Well, this just goes to prove my point, doesn't it. The UN sat on its hands regarding Iraq, and sits on its hands regarding the US. The only thing the UN has are warm hands these days.

A pointless body by virtue of the fact that all of the power of the UN lies with the Security Council, and all of that power lies within the hands of just five nations.

More proof of my points. Do we really disagree all that much?

[Skunk]

I guess not - we agree with eachother for different reasons...

[Azred]

Originally posted by Skunk: I never said it was OK, I said it was shocking. Most muslims believe that your actions define your faith and that if you engage yourself in a manner not consistent with the teachings of the Qu'ran, you can not call yourself a muslim. In the mind of the attackers, the targets were *not* muslims by definition. That's not to defend their actions, but only to put them into perspective.

*sigh* It seems that I have making mistakes all day long today. Very long story; I won't bore anyone with the details.

I know that "muslim" translates as "one who submits to Allah"; given the moral context of Islam I can see that lounging around in a bikini might not be [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] "up to snuff".