Morality in the American Presidency - Page 6

Ronn_Bman · 01-28-2002, 01:06 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol:
If the UN tells us(United States) what to do, do we listen? Nope. Yet we expect other countries to do as the UN says. What a screwed up system.....

The permanent seats on the Security Council are a major problem with the concept. It's why the UN has never acted against the USSR or China. They can veto the same as US.

I guess the good guys on the SC are France and UK

. The US used to be one of the good guys, but then the darned old USSR went and broke up. You know, sometimes I think they did it just to spite US. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

ispq · 01-28-2002, 01:29 PM

When did France and the UK become the good guys? *Smiles* Both were colonial imperialist powers when America was still getting its act together.

The UK can take perverse pleasure in the fact that anything bad that a nation can do has been done by them, often better than anyone else. Organized Drug trade anyone? Britain opened the Chinese market using Opium grown in I believe India. Speaking of India, Britain dominated the subcontinent for 150 years by playing local governments off one another. Britain held a huge percentage of the world under its economic thumb by restricting how trade flowed between itself and its colonies and itself and everyone else.

I make no claims that either government is evil, but both (I know I didn't include an french examples but I know they exist, think Vietnam) have done questionable actions in the past, and will probably do so again in the future. I admit freely that America has done much of the same, but they are not unique, they are simply the largest and most noticable offender.

Barry the Sprout · 01-30-2002, 08:16 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

True, but the thing that's really worrying is that the UN would want to lift the embargo despite the fact that Iraq has refused to allow inspections. The Iraqis sent the UN inspectors "packing", the UN demanded the inspectors be allowed to do their jog, the Iraqis sid no, and the UN wants to lift the sanctions? Why is it ok for Iraq to fly in the face of the UN orders?

Even if every nation in the world except the US is against the embargo, the embargo itself is not against humanitarian aid (never has been) and is not causing the starvation of Iraqi children.

Once again Ronn... half right... I just have to take issue with a few of these points I am afraid.

The UN didn't send weapons inspectors. The US insisted that the weapons inspectors be American, not part of the UN force. When they were sent in they were caught spying and sent home again. This means that now the US can refuse medical supplies despite the fact that the embargo shouldn't cover them in the first place. The letter of the embargo states that medical supplies are allowed in only if they are thouroughly inspected first, which can't happen as no weapon inspectors are allowed in. So a combination of US and Iraqi stubborness means that the supplies that should get in don't.

LoA and ispq - I totally agree. There are a few countries in the UN to whom the rules simply don't apply. The UK, the US, France, Russia, and China all spring to mind.

Saz and Mem, sorry to ressurect this thread, there were just a few points I wanted to make. If either of you have a problem, with this post or me in general, please don't hesitate to PM or e-mail me.

Ronn_Bman · 01-30-2002, 08:30 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

Once again Ronn... half right... I just have to take issue with a few of these points I am afraid.

The UN didn't send weapons inspectors. The US insisted that the weapons inspectors be American, not part of the UN force. When they were sent in they were caught spying and sent home again. This means that now the US can refuse medical supplies despite the fact that the embargo shouldn't cover them in the first place. The letter of the embargo states that medical supplies are allowed in only if they are thouroughly inspected first, which can't happen as no weapon inspectors are allowed in. So a combination of US and Iraqi stubborness means that the supplies that should get in don't.

Interesting that you'd believe Saddam's claims that the US was spying and not the claims from the US to the contrary.

"Spying" to make sure they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction was the job of the inspectors, and there were inspectors of other nationalities. If you have a link to support that there weren't, I'd love to check it out.

The fact that the Iraqis were defeated and agreed to the inspections, and that fact that the Iraqis are the ones who need the supplies makes me think Saddam doesn't care very much if they get them or not.

Memnoch · 01-30-2002, 08:34 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

Saz and Mem, sorry to ressurect this thread, there were just a few points I wanted to make. If either of you have a problem, with this post or me in general, please don't hesitate to PM or e-mail me.

I don't have a problem with the post, or with your role in it. I think we all need to make sure we're treating each other with respect, but we also need to make sure that we don't take everything personally.

fable · 01-30-2002, 08:48 AM

There remains something of an ideological split between those of the right who believe "right" moral character in an elected official is defined by private behavior, and those who feel it is defined by public behavior. Thus, to the advocates of the former view, Kennedy was a bad president because his private moral behavior "set a bad example" for the nation. Of course, it could be said that some revered presidents were no worse for having private sins--Jefferson, according to Henry Adams (in his history of the Jefferson and Madison White House years), nearly fought a duel because the latest object of his affections was so annoyed at his attentions that she told her husband; it took friends of the near-cuckold to remind him of the political import of such an act before the demand for honor to be satisfied was withdrawn.

On the other side, a president like Harding was never tied to any scandal, in any fashion (while alive), but his cabinet consisted of men whose shady actions included, among other things, actually buying a whorehouse with public funds so they could satisfy their lusts (and those of their friends) at any hour of the day or night. If we agree for the sake of discussion that Harding knew what his cronies were up to (and that's never been proven), was he more culpable for allowing such a thing to take place and continue, than the private misdemeanors of Jefferson and Kennedy? Or was Harding's private rectitude a better example for the American public, all questions of presidential competence to one side?

01-28-2002, 01:06 PM	#51
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol: If the UN tells us(United States) what to do, do we listen? Nope. Yet we expect other countries to do as the UN says. What a screwed up system..... The permanent seats on the Security Council are a major problem with the concept. It's why the UN has never acted against the USSR or China. They can veto the same as US. I guess the good guys on the SC are France and UK . The US used to be one of the good guys, but then the darned old USSR went and broke up. You know, sometimes I think they did it just to spite US. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

01-30-2002, 08:16 AM	#53
Barry the Sprout White Dragon Join Date: October 19, 2001 Location: York, UK. Age: 41 Posts: 1,815	quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: True, but the thing that's really worrying is that the UN would want to lift the embargo despite the fact that Iraq has refused to allow inspections. The Iraqis sent the UN inspectors "packing", the UN demanded the inspectors be allowed to do their jog, the Iraqis sid no, and the UN wants to lift the sanctions? Why is it ok for Iraq to fly in the face of the UN orders? Even if every nation in the world except the US is against the embargo, the embargo itself is not against humanitarian aid (never has been) and is not causing the starvation of Iraqi children. Once again Ronn... half right... I just have to take issue with a few of these points I am afraid. The UN didn't send weapons inspectors. The US insisted that the weapons inspectors be American, not part of the UN force. When they were sent in they were caught spying and sent home again. This means that now the US can refuse medical supplies despite the fact that the embargo shouldn't cover them in the first place. The letter of the embargo states that medical supplies are allowed in only if they are thouroughly inspected first, which can't happen as no weapon inspectors are allowed in. So a combination of US and Iraqi stubborness means that the supplies that should get in don't. LoA and ispq - I totally agree. There are a few countries in the UN to whom the rules simply don't apply. The UK, the US, France, Russia, and China all spring to mind. Saz and Mem, sorry to ressurect this thread, there were just a few points I wanted to make. If either of you have a problem, with this post or me in general, please don't hesitate to PM or e-mail me. __________________ [img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe

01-30-2002, 08:30 AM	#54
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Once again Ronn... half right... I just have to take issue with a few of these points I am afraid. The UN didn't send weapons inspectors. The US insisted that the weapons inspectors be American, not part of the UN force. When they were sent in they were caught spying and sent home again. This means that now the US can refuse medical supplies despite the fact that the embargo shouldn't cover them in the first place. The letter of the embargo states that medical supplies are allowed in only if they are thouroughly inspected first, which can't happen as no weapon inspectors are allowed in. So a combination of US and Iraqi stubborness means that the supplies that should get in don't. Interesting that you'd believe Saddam's claims that the US was spying and not the claims from the US to the contrary. "Spying" to make sure they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction was the job of the inspectors, and there were inspectors of other nationalities. If you have a link to support that there weren't, I'd love to check it out. The fact that the Iraqis were defeated and agreed to the inspections, and that fact that the Iraqis are the ones who need the supplies makes me think Saddam doesn't care very much if they get them or not. __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

01-30-2002, 08:34 AM	#55
Memnoch Ironworks Moderator Join Date: February 28, 2001 Location: Boston/Sydney Posts: 11,771	quote: Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Saz and Mem, sorry to ressurect this thread, there were just a few points I wanted to make. If either of you have a problem, with this post or me in general, please don't hesitate to PM or e-mail me. I don't have a problem with the post, or with your role in it. I think we all need to make sure we're treating each other with respect, but we also need to make sure that we don't take everything personally. __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anger and morality	Ilander	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	8	01-19-2005 05:06 PM
morality and science in IW	promethius9594	General Discussion	17	07-17-2004 10:16 AM
morality	Gabrielles blades	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	24	06-19-2002 10:00 AM
EU Presidency proposed!	MagiK	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	30	06-14-2002 08:41 AM
morality of 1010011	slug	Wizards & Warriors Forum	14	03-10-2001 10:41 PM

01-28-2002, 01:29 PM	#52
ispq Elite Waterdeep Guard Join Date: November 8, 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA, USA Posts: 29	When did France and the UK become the good guys? Smiles Both were colonial imperialist powers when America was still getting its act together. The UK can take perverse pleasure in the fact that anything bad that a nation can do has been done by them, often better than anyone else. Organized Drug trade anyone? Britain opened the Chinese market using Opium grown in I believe India. Speaking of India, Britain dominated the subcontinent for 150 years by playing local governments off one another. Britain held a huge percentage of the world under its economic thumb by restricting how trade flowed between itself and its colonies and itself and everyone else. I make no claims that either government is evil, but both (I know I didn't include an french examples but I know they exist, think Vietnam) have done questionable actions in the past, and will probably do so again in the future. I admit freely that America has done much of the same, but they are not unique, they are simply the largest and most noticable offender.

01-30-2002, 08:48 AM	#56
fable Quintesson Join Date: March 17, 2001 Location: Where I am. Posts: 1,089	There remains something of an ideological split between those of the right who believe "right" moral character in an elected official is defined by private behavior, and those who feel it is defined by public behavior. Thus, to the advocates of the former view, Kennedy was a bad president because his private moral behavior "set a bad example" for the nation. Of course, it could be said that some revered presidents were no worse for having private sins--Jefferson, according to Henry Adams (in his history of the Jefferson and Madison White House years), nearly fought a duel because the latest object of his affections was so annoyed at his attentions that she told her husband; it took friends of the near-cuckold to remind him of the political import of such an act before the demand for honor to be satisfied was withdrawn. On the other side, a president like Harding was never tied to any scandal, in any fashion (while alive), but his cabinet consisted of men whose shady actions included, among other things, actually buying a whorehouse with public funds so they could satisfy their lusts (and those of their friends) at any hour of the day or night. If we agree for the sake of discussion that Harding knew what his cronies were up to (and that's never been proven), was he more culpable for allowing such a thing to take place and continue, than the private misdemeanors of Jefferson and Kennedy? Or was Harding's private rectitude a better example for the American public, all questions of presidential competence to one side?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)