becuase those in charge are Those in Charge. perhaps they'd rather go after them comm'nists than any sorta yellowcake-baking place
xpost
maybe
― kingfish (Kingfish), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 18:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 18:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 18:27 (eighteen years ago) link
I thought this restriction had been quietly lifted during Bush 43's first term? (Or possibly under Clinton?)
― j.lu (j.lu), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 19:31 (eighteen years ago) link
well, yeah. i don't think there's much debate on this part
― kingfish completely hatstand (Kingfish), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 19:34 (eighteen years ago) link
Can we really even debate whether there are people anywhere in the world (who aren't hunger striking) who prefer starvation to nutriment? Who prefer being tortured for criticizing their leader rather than going un-tortured? Who prefer being raped to not being raped?
Can you honestly tell me that, real-world baggage aside, if you could just push a button and change the situation in N. Korea so that everyone had enough food, could speak freely, and didn't have to worry about being kidnapped and sent to prison camps, you wouldn't do it unless you could take a poll of N. Koreans to see if that's what they really wanted?
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:01 (eighteen years ago) link
-- charltonlido (...), August 10th, 2005.
This is an evasion tactic. I chose N. Korea because I happened to have just read an article about N. Korea. Niger, Darfur, and any other such disasters should of course be addressed as well, but N. Korea is definitely up there with the worst of them.
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:04 (eighteen years ago) link
Yeah, but she'd have to be REEEAALLY pretty.
― LeCoq (LeCoq), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:07 (eighteen years ago) link
you may be right, perhaps going in and cleaning up nk would be a good idea, (even taking into account yet more anti-american resentment around the world). how about darfur? americans involving themselves in muslim affairs AGAIN? the west sure loves to play good muslim bad muslim (or house slave field slave?)
and relativism? sure, though an inconsistent policy of regime change around the world is also a form of relativism. and since we are dealing with the reality of forced change via american force, we have to deal with the reality of reaction to forced american change
and, as for real-world baggage aside, i dont know, pure hypothetics, ideal world stuff, ook i can live with that, but, no, not in the real world. we need to learn lessons about this stuff, and stop dreaming we are in this ideal world, as every occupation takes us further from it
america is perceived as a giant bully, as a crusader, as anti-islamic, in large sections of the world, whether it is true or not, and more actions along these lines, only increase that feeling
perhaps people are even wrong to feel that, i dont know, but are you going to tell them they are wrong, or shall i?
it may be relativism, but you cant force universals onto a people, if they dont consider themselves universal
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:29 (eighteen years ago) link
why are they so ungrateful when we arrive in our big hats?
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― cunt, Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:37 (eighteen years ago) link
Citing Bush admin foreign policy is a red herring, as it takes human rights only as an afterthought, and that only where convenient. You're avoiding the moral issue at hand.
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:39 (eighteen years ago) link
israel, if we could be bothered, is a country where *we* could do something! but there is much less interest in that, obviously
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:46 (eighteen years ago) link
the 2nd post in this thread might be a start, or, at the very least, more engagement with countries (i wonder how long NK would have survived if it had been able to isolate). the removal of leaders (esp iran in 1953, allende in 73 etc etc) has been tremendously counter-productive. certainly some bridge-building would be a start, and some PR! if we can improve american standing in the world, and not expect it to get better for a few years. certainly i dont think going to war for moral reasons is valid (neither does the US administration, hence the halfhearted attempts where there havent been other things at stake)
the current policy seems to be making us more enemies day by day
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:47 (eighteen years ago) link
http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/IMG_1832.JPG
DEFEAT THE AMERICA WAR MACHINE!~!!!!!w00t woot
― cunt, Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:47 (eighteen years ago) link
-- charltonlido (...), August 11th, 2005.
Just to be clear, and for the second time, I'm not talking about current policy. I'm talking about what is to be done about humanitarian crises.
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:48 (eighteen years ago) link
surely, a global policeman must not be seen as biased to one side, or the other side will resist?
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:50 (eighteen years ago) link
So even if an invasion was justified and required by all moral criteria you'd oppose it because some people might think badly of us for it?
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:53 (eighteen years ago) link
I might agree with you here, from a pragmatic standpoint. It's Bush's fault though. I think under Clinton we still had some foreign policy cred, which helped our action in Kosovo.
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:55 (eighteen years ago) link
or lets say libya (secularist leader americans dont like). thinking about the 'some people that might think badly of us for it' (also known as the islamic world), i'd argue that regime change in libya would be a total nightmare, for this reason. and fuelling islamic anti-americanism, and reinforcing the worldview that america is merely israels enforcer (rightly or wrongly) seems a bad idea yes. this is why no american invasion in a muslim country can work
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 04:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:00 (eighteen years ago) link
You're wringing your hands and lamenting that the US or whoever can't get involved in Sudan without looking like the bad guy. That's the UN for you. The countries with the worst human rights records in the world hide behind "we don't want the West to lecture us about human rights" rhetoric and harp on Abu Ghraib in order to deflect attention from their own FAR WORSE human rights abuses (has there been a UN resolution condemning the massacre in Uzbekistan? Will there be one? Etc.). Meanwhile, the EU countries abstain from most contentious resolutions and don't have the balls to stand up and say, "hey, killing 70K people in Sudan is WRONG".
This just in -- killing 70K people in Darfur and causing another 2 million to become homeless makes you the bad guy. Pointing out that such things are wrong does not.
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:04 (eighteen years ago) link
saddam was wrong. was the invasion right? morally? practically? perhaps it is one but not the other. if something is right morally, is it negated if it worsens the problem? how about 70K dead, but invasion sparks off much worse?
the need to do *something* is understandable, but we are getting involved in, and worsening situations, and we are also turning the entire muslim world against us (much more so in 05 than 00). is there any way to stop this?
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:08 (eighteen years ago) link
Things like the invasion and Abu Graib are especially bad because they erode the image of moral authority that we once at least somewhat carried in the world. They rob us of our ability to intervene for moral reasons because no one believes our justifications. But I'd certainly prefer that the US had that image back and started using it for the right purposes.
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:26 (eighteen years ago) link
yeah, exactly. vets talked about playing horseshoes with Japanese POWs, etc.
― kingfish completely hatstand (Kingfish), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― kingfish completely hatstand (Kingfish), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― kingfish completely hatstand (Kingfish), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:33 (eighteen years ago) link
Evan Dorkin wrote something in one of this comix along the lines of "one of the reasons that this planet sucks is because the only people in it are the people in it," but that fact shouldn't necessarily stop you.
― kingfish completely hatstand (Kingfish), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:48 (eighteen years ago) link
to go back to the threat title, North Korea and Darfur are dicey as shit and there aint really shit that any of us can do about, aside from letting more and more folks know about what's going on, and to try to apply pressure to elected officials to work peaceably(if possible) at it. oh yeah, and to also insure that the officials elected aren't the kinda folks to go off and invade at a multi-faceted whim.
when you have so many politicos who waver with whichever way the wind blows, then you can go about changing the direction of the air currents, as it were.
― kingfish completely hatstand (Kingfish), Thursday, 11 August 2005 05:53 (eighteen years ago) link
You do seem to be avoiding (or maybe I missed your response to) the point that Iraq isn't a typical situation, that it's one where more or less everything that could be bungled has been.
Also, have you been drinking? You sound like you're moderately to quite drunk, but all the letters in your words are in the right order.
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 11 August 2005 06:27 (eighteen years ago) link
its getting dangerously close to us and them, on this thread isnt it? and thats the danger, going in for humanitarian reasons, doesnt really tally with "us and them", especially if 'they' dont think right? a
again, was it justified for vietnam to invade cambodia to take out the khymer rouge? why or why not?
well, we're now talking about non-american/western forces? also we're talking then about a threat on the doorstep. im not really arguing against war per se at all, and i'm sure the vietnamese went in there as much for security reasons as for 'humanitarian' reasons. but the crux of the matter is, this thread isnt really for condemning or praising the actions of other states, this thread is about the actions of our own nations
and as for iraq, i thought i had said i dont believe it to be a 'special case'. i think any action in iran would be equally disastrous, for the same reasons, and sudan, syria, libya all have similarities. although, yes, i agree, that in principle, all situations are special cases with unique circumstances
i'd be more inclined to argue that its actually north korea that is the special case though
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 07:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 11 August 2005 07:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Monday, 15 August 2005 13:58 (eighteen years ago) link