Nationalism is not Good
- Thread starter newfangle
- Start date
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I completely agree especially when it comes to Israel. But you must remember that these laws weren't forced upon us. We created them and so have to abide by them. If we don't like them then we should try and change them not simply ignore them.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Yes it does.
This is what I was referring to about Moral Cowardice, knowing it's the right thing to do and hiding behind laws, accords and treaties.
It's a betrayal of the fundemental principle of right and wrong.
Fear of abuse is justified, but only if this process repeats it's self over and over.
I'm sure we all agree that Syria and Iran have govenments that are serious destabilizers, and are unfriendly to the United States, but NOBODY wants to invade them, so I'm incredulous to the arguments about precedence and fear of abuse.
It seems the world body has suffered a severe attack of paralysis, bobgote's post shows this, he states the world suffers many terror attacks, but basically does nothing, only the Americans have what he calls "an infalted opinion of there lives", or we value or lives above others, a FALSE statement.
The difference we are willing to fight to protect our citizens, he, and many Europeans it seems, ARE NOT.
In short, you have DEVALUED your own lives, and become so inured to outside events that NOTHING will make you act (not you personally Mr Pres, I'm speaking to the others here).
No act, no event, NOTHING will make you act UNLESS it happens to you personally, and that is....MORAL COWARDICE.
I would not want to live in a world that only values it's own ass at the expense of others, and I thank my lucky stars I live in a nation that feels the same way.
Like I told Hitro, he and his nation have every right to do as they like, just as the US has the right to feel betrayed, and I do personally, as do many of us here, and we won't soon forget nations so callous that they will do NOTHING to stop this evil in this world, outside of continous accusations that the US is always in the wrong.
When I hear such comments directed at the USA. the only word for those making such a statement that comes to mind is "DISPICABLE".
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
And there you are fundamentally wrong. You assume those opposing war against Iraq knew that it would be the right thing to do but don't act accordingly for reasons of cowardice. In itself feeling betrayed makes sense, I would agree with you if your assumption was correct.
But it isn't, and that's what you have to realize before you dismiss others, even complete nations, as traitors to some cause. Those who oppose war in Iraq know (rather think to know, as everybody else does) that it is not the right thing to do. That is the main reason why they don't want to do it.
As I explained above it is not. Most people, no matter what stance they take on this issue, think that they do the right thing. They just disagree about what that is.
Who are you (meaning the American leadership whose opinion you, AoA, personally support) to decide what is right or wrong?
However, in general there is a point about self-interest ruling nations' decisions, but that has neither been different in former times nor is it different in different regions. Europe does it, America does it, China does it, and so on...
But in the Iraq issue the main point is disagreement about what is in our (mutual) self-interest.
Well again, many don't believe attacking Iraq serves the interest of protecting our (peoples), so you can't simplify it to the formula quoted above.
European nations that suffered from terrorism did fight it. And when I think about the IRA there comes the question to my mind why America didn't stop people from funding that terror organization that was killing British nationals. May it have been self-interest?
You have the right to feel what you want (fortunately, that is), all I'm saying is that there's no reason to feel what you feel in this case.
Cloudyvortex
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 497
Humans are humans, we make up our minds and then rationalize our thoughts. I support nationalism because I always have, and it doesn't matter whether I change my mind or not because I'm never going to really change my mind, only my wording.
Come to think of it, on Judge Judy
the plaintiffs change every week.
On these threads, It's the same
old posters argumenting the
same old cases, losin' them
and then bashin' the judge.
Just can't decide whether
Judy is the UN or The EU.
knowltok2
Deity
A scary thought, and one that you may want to reconsider lest you offend a member of the EU, or a supporter of the UN.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Hitro already said what I was going to say but I wanted to add something. Respecting internatinal law is not moral cowardice. I believe in the rule of law. It is what society is based upon. We cannot choose which laws to follow and which law to break. That is why I opposed Bush throwing out the 1972 ICBM treaty and why I am very nervous about a war with just American and Britain. I don't think this is moral cowardice. I think it is the duty of the world's only superpower to uphold the law of the land.
I think you are so wrong on this. Look at the campaigns against ETA and the IRA and you will see that European are willing to fight to protect their citizens. The difference is that there is no conclusive evidence that European citizens or American citizens are in danger because of Iraq. And as I have said before a Pax Romano doesn't work. You cannot secure the freedom of every single American in this world by force. What will happen is that everytime you strike you will have to strike harder and stronger. The only way you will ever secure world peace is by removing humans from this world. Although I think Bush may be considering that. Maybe you should take a closer look at the history you say that you have learned from, specifically at Vietnam. And tell me if replying to terrorism with pure force worked. You may not like the proportional response strategy but it all we have.
Real politik sucks at times. There have been many times throughout history when American and all nations have allowed evil in this world to survive. There are some things you cannot do (and in the case of Germany don't want to do). And the reason America wants to attack is not to stop this evil man but t out of self-interest. If he didn't have weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to acquire) them do you think Bush would be calling for a war? I don't think. You can try to dress this up all you want but the fundamental driving reason for this war is American self-defense. A legimate reason in itself but not the act of kindness you are trying to protray.
I disagree. The World Wars were similar to Pandora's box. When opened they unleashed the most evil things ever to have existed. And yet they also contained hope. Hope of a better future. Hope of a world where war would not be needed. Hope of world peace. That is why the United Nations and the League of Nations was created. Not because we thought that we had faced the worst war possible or the last one but because we hoped they were.
knowltok2
Deity
Wasn't that the treaty that allowed for either party to give six months notice before cancelation? If it is, than I am pretty sure that the six months was given. You may not agree with the decision, but I don't think it was a breach of law.
Jorge
Yo mismo
I have been reading Alcibiaties of Athenae's comments and I have to say that I completly disagree with him.
Fisrt of all, it's not clear at all that attacking Iraq is the right thing to do. If that were so clear United Nations would support the attack, and they don't. We can not create an international organization like UN to bring some order in the international relationships and after that ignore it. It's not coherent.
Second, many countries in Europe supported US after September 11th and in the war in Afganistan. So Europe's contries are willing to support US when they think US is rigth. It's simply that this is not the case. We believe that attacking Iraq is not rigth in this moment.
Fisrt of all, it's not clear at all that attacking Iraq is the right thing to do. If that were so clear United Nations would support the attack, and they don't. We can not create an international organization like UN to bring some order in the international relationships and after that ignore it. It's not coherent.
Second, many countries in Europe supported US after September 11th and in the war in Afganistan. So Europe's contries are willing to support US when they think US is rigth. It's simply that this is not the case. We believe that attacking Iraq is not rigth in this moment.
knowltok2
Deity
The clarity of whether it is right or wrong has about zero bearing on whether the UN will support it or not. It is all a factor of politics, national self-interest, and deal-making. Lack of UN support does not make something 'wrong' and UN support does not make it 'right'. Legal is a different matter.
Just wanted to point that out.
Jorge
Yo mismo
You are rigth in the sense that what UN says doesn't have to be the rigth thing, but it's the only thing we have. Under my point of view UN's opinion is more trustful than the opinion of a single country, and by far more trusful than Bush. Several months ago Bush was accusing Cuba of building biological weapons. What would had happen if Castro had refused to allow inspectors? Should we bomb Cuba?
Dralix
Killer of threads
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,407
The difference there is that there is currently a UN resolution that demands Iraq allow weapons inspectors in, and giving them authority to dismantle any chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs they find. The problem as I see it is that the resolution does not spell out any action that should be taken if Iraq does not comply. Clearly leaving this out was a serious mistake.
That is why I fully agree with the current proposal of drafting a new UN resolution that authorizes the use of force if Iraq does not comply. I do not support action without such a resolution.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
FIRSTLY, you'd better bloody well read this. I didn't type it for it to be ignored. 
If it's in a country's interest to support another country, it will do so, if not it probably won't. Obviously, countries have natural alliances, which will count for a lot, but France, for example, isn't supporting the US because of perfectly rational (in their eyes) reasons:
1. They have a large and unstable Arab population.
2. They have significant business interests in Iraq.
3. They don't believe that the threat posed to them by Iraq is sufficiently substantial for them to risk the lives and to spend the money necessary.
A of A et. al. may get uptight about France's lack of support, and I can understand why. But he/they shouldn't mistake France's lack of support for spinelessness (in this instance at least).
This does *not* mean I agree with France's position - I think that Blair is doing very well, and is doing the right things.
What it does mean is that some people in the States should consider that other countries act in their own self interest, too. Rightly or wrongly.
One of the most barbaric and efficient groups in Europe are the Irish Republican Army. They have been killing innocent people for many years, in both Ulster and on the mainland, including unborn babies and dozens of policemen.
They have had constant implicit and explicit support from many in the States through Noraid and other groups for many years. This is American money going DIRECTLY to terrorists who use the money to do no different to what the Palestinians are doing in Israel - i.e. killing randomly with no justification.
The Americans have been very quiet on the issue until President Bush, becasue it was in their interests to be so. Many Irish-Americans support a united Ireland, which apparently takes precedence over taking concrete steps to help us eradicate terrorism over here.
I am on the pro-American side of the most pro-American party in the most pro-American country in Europe. I nearly always have sympathy with the American side of arguments against Paris and Berlin (theoretical and practical), and am 100% behind Bush on the Iraq issue.
However, remember that other countries are merely defending what they see is their self interest.
If it's in a country's interest to support another country, it will do so, if not it probably won't. Obviously, countries have natural alliances, which will count for a lot, but France, for example, isn't supporting the US because of perfectly rational (in their eyes) reasons:
1. They have a large and unstable Arab population.
2. They have significant business interests in Iraq.
3. They don't believe that the threat posed to them by Iraq is sufficiently substantial for them to risk the lives and to spend the money necessary.
A of A et. al. may get uptight about France's lack of support, and I can understand why. But he/they shouldn't mistake France's lack of support for spinelessness (in this instance at least
).This does *not* mean I agree with France's position - I think that Blair is doing very well, and is doing the right things.
What it does mean is that some people in the States should consider that other countries act in their own self interest, too. Rightly or wrongly.
One of the most barbaric and efficient groups in Europe are the Irish Republican Army. They have been killing innocent people for many years, in both Ulster and on the mainland, including unborn babies and dozens of policemen.
They have had constant implicit and explicit support from many in the States through Noraid and other groups for many years. This is American money going DIRECTLY to terrorists who use the money to do no different to what the Palestinians are doing in Israel - i.e. killing randomly with no justification.
The Americans have been very quiet on the issue until President Bush, becasue it was in their interests to be so. Many Irish-Americans support a united Ireland, which apparently takes precedence over taking concrete steps to help us eradicate terrorism over here.
I am on the pro-American side of the most pro-American party in the most pro-American country in Europe. I nearly always have sympathy with the American side of arguments against Paris and Berlin (theoretical and practical), and am 100% behind Bush on the Iraq issue.
However, remember that other countries are merely defending what they see is their self interest.
knowltok2
Deity
Sorry, but I'm going to have to decide the right and wrong of an issue based on its own merrits, and not upon extra weight given to the UN. I may decide that it is better to follow the laws and rules of the situation, but that isn't going to affect my view of right and wrong.
Another point to make is that the UN isn't actually against invading Iraq under some conditions. It is still in the process of determining what resolutions should be adopted. There has not been a vote that I know of that said Iraq should be voted, and was struck down by the security council.
Jorge
Yo mismo
That's OK, but US has to accept that what they consider right may not be considered the same for the rest. It's not acceptable to call other people coward, or say that they have betrayed US just for having a different opinion.
knowltok2
Deity
Quite true, and if you look far enough up in this thread you will find I did speak about that.
Along the same lines, rhetoric from all sides should be kept to a minimum, and haveing the understanding you mention goes a long way. I don't agree with cowardice or betrayal being used to describe Europe, but at the same time I don't agree with imperialistic, greedy, or adventuresome being used to describe the US.
