|
|
|
WindupAtheist
New Member
41 Posts |
 Posted - 10/11/2001 : 23:07:19 [Permalink]
|
The story of this thread can be summed up with two quotes.
Hook: Instead of attacking, what are your suggestions for what we should be doing?
Gorgo: I have nothing constructive to say.
Hey Gorgo, whine and cry about how evil America is all you want. Beg the forgiveness of people who would gladly cut your throat. Nobody cares. Nobody is listening. You're like those imbeciles who preach that the world is flat.
|
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2001 : 03:12:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was being nice. It is illegal to do what the U.S. has done so far. To attack another country without negotiations violates the U.N. Charter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this satisfy you? Or does it simply not matter that this has been addressed for years at the U.N. and in negotiations?
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/99sc1267.htm
Your response to this was to change the ground rules to imply that the UN can NEVER condone military action (at least not US military action:
quote:
I'm sure I'll be satisfied when someone explains some things to me.
I missed the part where it says that George Bush is emperor and the U.S. should go in and bomb whatever country they feel like bombing. Is that the part that's been discussed for years? By whom? Wolf Blitzer?
When you find that for me, please show me the part that says it's okay for the new Emperor and the Security Council to tear up the UN Charter. See especially Chapter XI article 33.
Your link to Article 33 says about war only that it is the UN's intent to "save future generations from the scourge of war."
Noble and good. It is not an admission that the UN will never use force.
You have become like Sagan's fictional neighbor with the dragon in the garage, constantly adding objections when the previous ones are met.
The US has negotiated. For years. As recently as June of this year the US again made the formal request to the Taliban to hand over the indicted bin Laden and his network.
I'm joining Zman on this topic. Bye.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2001 : 03:33:14 [Permalink]
|
Again, evil is a word that you use, not one that I used, except to repeat what others are saying.
All I am saying is that if you wish a world free of crime, then start with yourself. If you care about the rule of law, then act like it. Who is that attacking?
Your need to call people imbeciles is noted and appreciated.
quote:
The story of this thread can be summed up with two quotes.
Hook: Instead of attacking, what are your suggestions for what we should be doing?
Gorgo: I have nothing constructive to say.
Hey Gorgo, whine and cry about how evil America is all you want. Beg the forgiveness of people who would gladly cut your throat. Nobody cares. Nobody is listening. You're like those imbeciles who preach that the world is flat.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2001 : 03:45:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Your link to Article 33 says about war only that it is the UN's intent to "save future generations from the scourge of war."
It says that it is the U.N.'s responsibility to see that negotiations take place. They did not take place. George Bush, just like GHW Bush, said that there will be no negotiations. Now, it may be that no settlement is reached, but if you make no attempt to follow some rule of law, how are you better than those you say don't follow the rule of law?
quote:
Noble and good. It is not an admission that the UN will never use force.
Look. I understand that we have not bothered to educate ourselves (that includes me) in ways to use something other than force, and I accept that. I haven't said that force is never acceptable. I only said that the only wars I know anything about are crimes against humanity, and I understand that my view is very limited. That is also talking about the past, which is very easy.
I also haven't seen where any U.N. body has authorized the use of force. This is purely a U.S. vigilante mission.
quote:
You have become like Sagan's fictional neighbor with the dragon in the garage, constantly adding objections when the previous ones are met.
The US has negotiated. For years. As recently as June of this year the US again made the formal request to the Taliban to hand over the indicted bin Laden and his network.
The U.S. has made no attempt to negotiate, only make unwavering demands. It may be that there can be no reasonable settlement reached, but that was never tried. It is necessary to negotiate in order to make any pretense that you care about the rule of law. I have changed nothing here. You, understandably, as you are not alone here, are building straw men to tear down.
quote:
I'm joining Zman on this topic. Bye.
My kids still love me.
Suit yourself. I understand that there is a lot of emotion attached to these ideas and that it is difficult to talk about. I've not always reacted perfectly, I'm sure, though I don't think I've resorted to name-calling. Thank you for not following others example in that regard.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org
Edited by - Gorgo on 10/12/2001 04:07:42 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2001 : 05:19:38 [Permalink]
|
Call me weak-willed, I suppose, but I can't let this slide.
quote:
It says that it is the U.N.'s responsibility to see that negotiations take place. They did not take place. George Bush, just like GHW Bush, said that there will be no negotiations
Did you even read the link I posted to about Security Council Resolution 1267 from 1999? It outlines the negotiations and entreaties that took place. Other negotiations took place afterwards, up to as recently as June of this year. The result was adamant refusal by the Taliban to renounce terrorist acts or to turn over indicted terrorists to ANYONE.
We negotiated after bin Laden's bombing of the US embassies. We negotiated after bin Laden's bombing of the USS Cole. We gave the Taliban one final chance after the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
THEY refused. THEY harbored the terrorists. THEY did not comply with US OR UN requests. THEY made and continue to make threats against the US.
They were given another chance last night and have already spurned it.
The end of negotiations is their responsibility. We, at least, attempt to limit damage as much as possible to the responsible governments and terrorists; they openly target (or support those who target) citizens.
Now I'm done.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2001 : 05:33:20 [Permalink]
|
I don't see negotiations. I see that demands were made and they were spurned. Is that negotiations?
I see resolutions against the government of Afghanistan.
I don't see resolutions authorizing the U.S. to attack anyone they want at will.
That doesn't mean that if the UN does something, I agree with it. That just means that if the US wishes to have some credibility, they need to work through existing legal structures, or help to create more credible structures if existing structures are not credible.
quote:
Call me weak-willed, I suppose, but I can't let this slide.
quote:
It says that it is the U.N.'s responsibility to see that negotiations take place. They did not take place. George Bush, just like GHW Bush, said that there will be no negotiations
Did you even read the link I posted to about Security Council Resolution 1267 from 1999? It outlines the negotiations and entreaties that took place. Other negotiations took place afterwards, up to as recently as June of this year. The result was adamant refusal by the Taliban to renounce terrorist acts or to turn over indicted terrorists to ANYONE.
We negotiated after bin Laden's bombing of the US embassies. We negotiated after bin Laden's bombing of the USS Cole. We gave the Taliban one final chance after the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
THEY refused. THEY harbored the terrorists. THEY did not comply with US OR UN requests. THEY made and continue to make threats against the US.
They were given another chance last night and have already spurned it.
The end of negotiations is their responsibility. We, at least, attempt to limit damage as much as possible to the responsible governments and terrorists; they openly target (or support those who target) citizens.
Now I'm done.
My kids still love me.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2001 : 11:28:21 [Permalink]
|
the operative theory in international relations for the past several thousand years:
the strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must.
rules and charters and agreements are only meaningful if they can be enforced. the un is not in a position to make the us conform.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2001 : 06:41:18 [Permalink]
|
Because the U.S. is above the law. The U.S. does not wish to conform to the same standards that it expects others to conform.
It is the largest terrorist nation on earth.
quote:
rules and charters and agreements are only meaningful if they can be enforced. the un is not in a position to make the us conform.
comrade billyboy
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2001 : 09:34:28 [Permalink]
|
Found this on the NYT forums in response to a Maureen Dowd article, and thought it was very good:
quote:
georgepaulmikos - 12:26pm Oct 14, 2001 EST (#61917 of 61918)
After 911, can anyone doubt that we're unique, as a country, as a culture, and as an idea?
Please, by all means, tell me again why America is so evil. Again, I'll listen respectfully. You can either yell your message in my face, or relay it with diffident, disarming charm. Your choice. You can either tirade me, or ask questions like, “Why is America so hated?” If the former, I might interrupt you occasionally with questions if I don't grok your message; if the latter, you might be surprised by the erudition & empathy of my answer. And, when you're done with whatever you want to do, I'll thank you, & tell you that I'll will remember your words & venom & passions, and that, from then on, I plan to filter many of my thoughts thru them.
After you're done, you can leave or stay; your choice. If you decide to stay, I'll invite you to take a trip with me on BART to The City. Be warned, though. Put on your walking shoes. We'll be doing a lot of walking, some up steep hills where the cable cars don't go. We'll walk past churches of all kinds. You're a Sunni Muslim, you say, of the Wahhabi sect? No problem. We'll walk to a mosque where you'll feel right at home. By the way, the chief mullah of the mosque is my fellow American. We'll walk by shops owned by Chinese, Lebanese, Hondurans, Russians, Pakistanis, Kenyans, VietNamese, Turks, Jews, Japanese, & Brits. By the way, the proprietors of all these shops are my fellow Americans. On our walk, you'll hear more languages than you would in a UN translator's break room. By the way, all these polyglot talkers are my fellow Americans. Of course, you'll see a lot of man-man & woman-women duos – this is San Francisco, after all. By the way, all these couples are my fellow Americans.
After we take the BART train back, I'll take you on a little drive, over the Bay and Golden Gate bridges to Marin County, and over winding, 2-lane California 1 up to the top of Mount Tam. From there, you can see the coast &, if we're lucky, the fog coming in; The City in all its beauty; the bay with all its sailboats; Alcatraz; & rural Marin County, where the average home sells for about a mill. I'll tell you that if you ask the 2 or 4 million people down there what America means to them, you'll hear 2 or 4 million different answers. And I'll tell you that every answer is the absolute correct one.
On our drive back, I'll ask you again why America is so hated. As before, I'll listen respectfully.
------------
And if rain brings winds of change
let it rain on us forever.
I have no doubt from what I've seen
that I have never wanted more.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2001 : 12:28:59 [Permalink]
|
These are all false questions, of course? Why do people hate? Hate is irrational. There is no reason for hate. Why do people live in the U.S.? Many reasons. People live and immigrate all over the world. Does this excuse a criminal foreign policy? I don't think so.
Is the U.S. to blame? Again, this is a false question. The real question is, has the U.S. been an example that we want others to follow? No.
quote:
Found this on the NYT forums in response to a Maureen Dowd
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
marvin
Skeptic Friend
77 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2001 : 14:38:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
…has the U.S. been an example [in foreign policy] that we want others to follow? ---Gorgo
Is perfection possible?
Is it the ultimate measure of a correct foreign policy to displease both ethical altruists and egoists?
Pure ethical altruism like pure ethical egoism both operate on a closed theory that rejects competing theories on its own terms. More grist for the mill, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2001 : 15:02:03 [Permalink]
|
pragmatisim vs morality?
do i want a foreign policy carried out by moralists, like the saintly bill bennett, or the more pragmatic ones like colin powell, and the totally amoral henry kissinger (all good mainstream republicans by the way)? shall we bring salvation to the world or merely make the world a better place for us, the US?
i'll take the pragmatic approach every day. the people who want to save the world are the real danger.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2001 : 04:50:11 [Permalink]
|
I re-read this post in the hope that I may have found some reason to think that I had been unreasonable earlier. I was unreasonable. To rectify that, I should also say that this person has no idea what she is talking about. Obviously one more person who condemns Chomsky and Zinn out of hand without ever having read a word of their writing.
quote:
Hey, Gorgo!!! Look out!! - I've been thinking about this rant ALL DAY while I worked at my job (gee, I wish I had the luxury of surfing bulletin boards day and night, repeating the same tiresome mantras over and over and over again). The latest news just makes it more imperative for me to vent.
Here's the "voice of reason" from the Al Qaeda for you and your appeasing buddies Chomsky, Clark and Zinn to work with to solve this horrifying "racist" (??)* war being waged by the evil, capitalist American swine who only “got what they deserved on September 11”. After this Goebbels clone laughs his ass off at your cowardly naivete, I'm sure you will all be treated to great "hospitality" by his organization. Just don't EVER confess that you're an "atheist" or he may blow your head off right on the spot or give you a prime seat on a special airplane ride. After you've essentially given away the store to these fanatics, I'm sure your fellow Americans will rest easy knowing that you've solved irrational terrorist hatred through loving negotiation. As for me, tell me when you're finished so I can move to the Yukon.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/strike_alqaedatrans011007.html
*It is a FACT that Ramsey Clark has a new organization called ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), which has declared that our retaliatory attacks on the brutal Taliban and their protection of a mass murderer terrorist are "racist" acts. Gee, maybe we should attack Norway just for the hell of it as a "multicultural" sop to appease looney-tunes Clark, but I don't seem to recall any of the hijackers being named "Olson" or "Johnson" or hailing from Trondheim. For those who are not familiar with Ramsey Clark, he actually defended Slobodan Milosovic, the Rwandan genocidal torturers and Saddam Hussein as anti-imperialist heroes. Maybe Hussein can send him a Jennifer Lopez Anthrax letter in appreciation!
By the way, I'm waving my flag! How jingoistic and cretinist of me! I must really be a moron. Also by the way, I am a staunch believer in democracy and in the right to any opinion, regardless of how puerile and wretched I may think that opinion to be. I also have the right to express my criticisms of those opinions. Expressing ideas does not make them exempt from criticism OR condemnation (and I can expect plenty of both from you and a few others for this little tirade). Believe it or not (and critical thinkers may know this), not every opinion in the world is equally valid and deserves uncritical air time! How can I say that? How discriminatory of me! You're damn right I'm discriminatory: I don't believe that child rapists deserve a “voice” (“tell us what the “root causes” are for what you did”, as if that can justify evil); I don't believe mass murderers deserve a “voice” (but bin Laden and his cronies are sure getting plenty of air time). Just causes like this war on terrorism (and this is a just cause – IMHO) are not fought based on Harris polls or bulletin board opinions or on the fringe babblings of radical "intellectuals" who would never pick up a gun and defend my rights but expect some poor enlistee to do it for theirs while they simultaneously condemn their actions, spit on “imperialism and capitalism” and sip their $80 Merlot.
  
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
