The issue of Bush as AWOL dodger

[minxnim]

i think he didnt because he was a fucking wuss is all.

 

[lizard]

well the wuss factor may have come into play as well.

I wonder why Bush is never seen in short sleeves? hmmmm possibly to hide the NEEDLE TRACKS AHHHH HAAAAA!

 

[xfer]

yeah, the UN is the best of a bad lot, but sometimes yuo have to play the hand you're dealt, and sometimes you need to just walk away. if you offered me the choice between raping a male baby and raping a female baby i would be like "look, do your worst to me, but i can't in good conscience choose either of those". the UN is at that level. you simply cannot morally take part in an organization that offers the sort of legitimacy to human-rights-destroying nations like china, syria, et cetera that the UN offers. there's a degree to which you have to try to work with villains and change them from within, but there's also a degree to which you have to draw a line.

 

[xfer]

bring back the LEAGUE OF NATIONS

 

[lizard]

most everyone knows this famous photo:

but many may not know that the Saigon chief of police on the left and my dad were friends. My dad says he was a great guy.

 

[xfer]

He looks like a real straight shooter!

 

[mindspell]

yeah, the UN is the best of a bad lot, but sometimes yuo have to play the hand you're dealt, and sometimes you need to just walk away. if you offered me the choice between raping a male baby and raping a female baby i would be like "look, do your worst to me, but i can't in good conscience choose either of those". the UN is at that level. you simply cannot morally take part in an organization that offers the sort of legitimacy to human-rights-destroying nations like china, syria, et cetera that the UN offers. there's a degree to which you have to try to work with villains and change them from within, but there's also a degree to which you have to draw a line.

I agree that almost condoning human rights violation is not right, however I would like to know your views on how to include the populations of these countries in decisional processes about the fate of a part of humanity. I don't agree that 1 billion or so people have to be excluded from stating their view on any global subject because their government has no regulations on prisoner's handling (for example).

You can make a lot of points on how each and every country represented in the UN is in violation of international law at some point or another. What do you do with that?

 

[lizard]

He looks like a real straight shooter!

nyuk nyuk on that afternoon, yes, he was.

 

[xfer]

First of all, "violation of international law" is not a bad (or good) thing. International law is crap. It's essentially "committee justice" and very rarely is fair or just. Abiding by it is like abiding by primitive military law; a good analogy to "international law" is Kubrick's "Paths of Glory", in which a bureaucratic apparatus is so concerned with the axis of "law/chaos" instead of "good/evil" that they execute men they know are innocent, simply because the system demands it.


You CAN make the argument that each and every country represented on the UN is guilty of genuinely bad things at one time or another--human rights violations and the like. But everybody has something bad about them, people AND countries. That doesn't mean you can't draw a distinction between Sally the Schoolteacher and Kyle the Serial Killer. Nations like the U.S., Britain, and (yes, even) France are far superior to nations like China, Syria, and Russia.

In the end, it's unfortunate that a billion people are unable to participate in world decisions--but the reason for that is because they're oppressed and ruined by their governments. The blame falls on the governments. If someone is thrown into jail, you do NOT give their vote to their jailer's, so the jailer now has two votes..in fact, that makes the matter worse! Similarly, the governments of authoritarian countries are the ones who engage with the UN, and they do NOT represent the rational elements of their country's people, and should not be given a vote on world affairs.

 

[mindspell]

First of all, "violation of international law" is not a bad (or good) thing. International law is crap. It's essentially "committee justice" and very rarely is fair or just. Abiding by it is like abiding by primitive military law; a good analogy to "international law" is Kubrick's "Paths of Glory", in which a bureaucratic apparatus is so concerned with the axis of "law/chaos" instead of "good/evil" that they execute men they know are innocent, simply because the system demands it.

Well that was part of my point of questionning. What exactly can you expect of a forum combining different moral codes and cultures that will clash no matter what you do.

You CAN make the argument that each and every country represented on the UN is guilty of genuinely bad things at one time or another--human rights violations and the like. But everybody has something bad about them, people AND countries. That doesn't mean you can't draw a distinction between Sally the Schoolteacher and Kyle the Serial Killer. Nations like the U.S., Britain, and (yes, even) France are far superior to nations like China, Syria, and Russia.

Explain far supperior Nations. In what way? In general respect of civil liberties? What is the basis of that judgment? Judeo-Christian moral code? I am just asking.

In the end, it's unfortunate that a billion people are unable to participate in world decisions--but the reason for that is because they're oppressed and ruined by their governments. The blame falls on the governments. If someone is thrown into jail, you do NOT give their vote to their jailer's, so the jailer now has two votes..in fact, that makes the matter worse! Similarly, the governments of authoritarian countries are the ones who engage with the UN, and they do NOT represent the rational elements of their country's people, and should not be given a vote on world affairs.

How can you judge that the people do not agree with the government in place? Clear human rights violation might be fine for a population (ex: mutilation of young girls in Congo, is it Congo? You get the point anyway). Authoritarian goverment does not always mean that the population disagrees. People agree with the goverment in most Islamic states, because it is god's will. I don't know how you can make that point valid with the variety of cultures this world has.

 

[xfer]

Superior in terms of human rights, civil liberties, and the like. The basis of the judgment is general morality. You could argue that general morality is based on Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion, but that essentially ties the existence of wrong and right to the existence of God, which is an excessively religious argument I'm not willing to try to make. Torture, for example, is bad, and not just because Judeo-Christian-Islamic morality says it's bad. Countries that allow torture by law are inferior (in the terms we're speaking of) than countries that don't; countries where torture is illegaly but widely allowed anyway are better than legal-torture countries, but worse than countries that tolerate it less, et cetera. When I say "China is inferior to the U.S.", I simply mean on human rights type terms, and using generally non-controversial criteria (torture, death penalty, freedom of expression, civil rights, et cetera).

As for "how can you judge that people do not agree with the government", notice I said "they do not represent the rational elements of their country's people". Supporters of female genital mutilation are not rational and, even if adequately represented in their government, should have ZERO say in determining the direction the world is heading. (Of course, nobody is a single-issue bad-or-good person or state. If Syria was enlightened in many other ways and a tireless liberal crusader of human rights, but they had the death penalty, that single issue shouldn't keep them out of the Ideal World Government we're speaking of. But quite the opposite: Syria is rotten across the board, with only a handful of good points).

 

[lizard]

omg

White House spokesman Scott McClellan holds up a copy of the
Beayeaux (sp) Tapestry indicating U.S. President George W. Bush
fulfilled his military obligation at the Battle of Hastings, in the
White House briefing room, February 10, 2004.

 

[mindspell]

So the solution is exclusion on the basis of the human right, civil liberties and morality. And who exactly will decide if one is fine and the other is not? Do you only go by what is known now? Do you do inspections in every country to verify the state of the nation? What kind of consensus you expect to have? What do you do with the country with the most influence that has no opposition anymore? (By that I mean, what are supposed to do with the US' influence once China, Russia and others are not there anymore to somewhat give you some opposition. How a small country relying on American citizen's aid or American commerce voice its opposition about a certain matter if it cannot count on another power for support? What would prevent you to run everything like you want and that others would not count?) How to establish balance?

 

[xfer]

OK, so you're not arguing the basis of moral prohibitions against torture, but only "How do we know who is torturing (and other violations) and who's not?" Well, obviously, we can never know completely, but one big indicator is the laws of the countries involved. Generally, a law on the books means that the national culture is more or less opposed to an activity like torture, and you can push all the nations who have laws against it into one group, and those that don't into a worse group. Honestly, if two nations torture more or less equally but one has a law against it and one doesn't, the one with the law against it is the better country--one step has been taken in the "fight against torture", and the problem is enforcement, not convincing the culture that a law against torture is even needed!

How to differentiate who actually follows their own law and to what degree? Free-speech laws, habeas corpus, and other civil liberties are a major factor in this, which is why nations with strong free-speech laws are generally near the top of the list. Dissident testimonies are huge--that's what the entirety of organizations like Amnesty International are based on. Sure, you can just "disappear" people so they can't testify their rights were violated, but that eventually gets noticed. Maybe you have a tough time differentiating who's "better" between Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, but you should not have any hesitation in putting any of those nations above your Sudans and your North Koreas, right?

As for your very legitimate worries about what to do when there is no effective opposition anymore for the major power...do you think, if you actually have to choose, that democracy is more important than human rights? If you could only have one or the other? Is the ONLY reason to oppose the hyperpower status of the US because "no one else gets a voice"? I would say no, absolutely not, but your argument betrays that very attitude: that democracy is primary, and things like human rights be damned. That's the kind of attitude that leads to horrendous human-rights abusing democracies who take refuge in the fact that their populace has VOTED to allow them to ethnically cleans an entire minority group, or remove free-speech provisions from law, or...(see, Algeria).

There are ways to exert your own influence over the bad parts of U.S. policy and turn them into good parts, and the answer is not located in the realm of spite. The U.S., bad as it is portrayed in the world, is not even close to the level of badness as most of the nations I'm opposed to including in the United Nations, and thus it's not a moral wrong to work within the system and change it. American culture is hugely shaped by British culture and Canadian culture in part because of our close ties--hopefully your attitudes toward drug legalisation, the death penalty, and gay marriage will eventually rub off on us. If a small county has a legitimate problem with the U.S.--not "they won't let us impose Sharia law, fuck them"--closer ties, not quarrelsome and illegitimate opposition, are more likely to temper American power.

America's hyperpower status will fall someday, but not because it was defeated from without. It'll be overtaken from within--by a close-ties nation like Canada. Unless China nukes the fuck out of us first.

 

[mindspell]

OK, so you're not arguing the basis of moral prohibitions against torture, but only "How do we know who is torturing (and other violations) and who's not?" Well, obviously, we can never know completely, but one big indicator is the laws of the countries involved. Generally, a law on the books means that the national culture is more or less opposed to an activity like torture, and you can push all the nations who have laws against it into one group, and those that don't into a worse group. Honestly, if two nations torture more or less equally but one has a law against it and one doesn't, the one with the law against it is the better country--one step has been taken in the "fight against torture", and the problem is enforcement, not convincing the culture that a law against torture is even needed!

I am not arguing the basis of moral prohibition but asking myself how to make it work in a morally diverse world. There is no question that torture is morally questionnable, I am just wondering how do you make a global coalition of countries that have hugely different moral fabric. And where exactly do you draw the line and how do you set the 'rules' that will determine what is and what is not morally wrong for a global society (ie, cheating on your spouse is morally wrong but not very law punishable in western countries where it might be grounds for death penalty elsewhere).

How to differentiate who actually follows their own law and to what degree? Free-speech laws, habeas corpus, and other civil liberties are a major factor in this, which is why nations with strong free-speech laws are generally near the top of the list. Dissident testimonies are huge--that's what the entirety of organizations like Amnesty International are based on. Sure, you can just "disappear" people so they can't testify their rights were violated, but that eventually gets noticed. Maybe you have a tough time differentiating who's "better" between Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, but you should not have any hesitation in putting any of those nations above your Sudans and your North Koreas, right?

No, I have no problem seeing countries that are 'better' than others, the problem is telling these countries that they are shit and ask them to get better. I am wondering how it would be possible to make a league of nations that would make sense and that would not be outright discriminatory for morally different countries that might not be that bad or that is improving (like China that has been improving their civil liberties dramatically in the past 15 years, although not quite up to par yet [long ways to go])

As for your very legitimate worries about what to do when there is no effective opposition anymore for the major power...do you think, if you actually have to choose, that democracy is more important than human rights? If you could only have one or the other? Is the ONLY reason to oppose the hyperpower status of the US because "no one else gets a voice"? I would say no, absolutely not, but your argument betrays that very attitude: that democracy is primary, and things like human rights be damned. That's the kind of attitude that leads to horrendous human-rights abusing democracies who take refuge in the fact that their populace has VOTED to allow them to ethnically cleans an entire minority group, or remove free-speech provisions from law, or...(see, Algeria).

I understand those points, however you have to understand that the flag that most western countries show to developping countries to show them the way is the flag of democracy. It would be a bit hypocritical to then turn around and say "be damned with democracy on a global level, we will have the president of the united states and its representant running things from now on globally. Democracy and free-speech go hand in hand, how can you complain with effectivenes if you don't have a say in anything? I am not saying human rights be damned, I am saying how can we make it work so that no superpower has absolutly all the power. I am questionning the modus operandi of your proposition not who should be in it. I want to know how to make it work so that it is a fair and morally acceptable for all.

There are ways to exert your own influence over the bad parts of U.S. policy and turn them into good parts, and the answer is not located in the realm of spite. The U.S., bad as it is portrayed in the world, is not even close to the level of badness as most of the nations I'm opposed to including in the United Nations, and thus it's not a moral wrong to work within the system and change it. American culture is hugely shaped by British culture and Canadian culture in part because of our close ties--hopefully your attitudes toward drug legalisation, the death penalty, and gay marriage will eventually rub off on us. If a small county has a legitimate problem with the U.S.--not "they won't let us impose Sharia law, fuck them"--closer ties, not quarrelsome and illegitimate opposition, are more likely to temper American power.

Note that the US was used principally as an example in the previous statement as it is the most influencial power right now. ASk me in twenty years and the "bad guy" could be Zimbabwe, that wasn't the point. I was using this example because Canada is another example of a smallish country that has everything to lose with closing its ties with the US. In a controversial case we will always side with the US because we have no choice. Already, the US is making things difficult for us in a lot of issues (strangely enough everything was fine when Bush wasn't there) we cannot expect to keep our quality of life without the trade we have with the US.

America's hyperpower status will fall someday, but not because it was defeated from without. It'll be overtaken from within--by a close-ties nation like Canada. Unless China nukes the fuck out of us first.

I honestly think that the status will fall economically at some point, and it could be sooner rather than later if the foreign policy does not change ( I think we should not start that discussion because it won't end)

 

[xfer]

We don't live in a morally diverse world--just a perceptually diverse world. American perception of morality may differ from Saudi Arabian perception of morality, but they're both perceptions of the same concept, with culturally unique flaws in that perception. For example, I believe a flaw in the (general) American perception of morality is the legitimacy of the death penalty. I believe a flaw in the general Saudi Arabian perception of morality is the institutionalized dehumanization of women. Nobody has a perfect perception of exactly what's right, but some national culture have views of morality with fewer flaws (deviations from reality) than others. Nations must learn from each other and correct their own flaws in their perceptions of morality, not try to argue that their flaws are legitimate and not flaws at all, and we must compromise rather than fix them.

The problem in essentially labelling other countries "inferior" (by taking away their rights to participate in a moral world government) lies in the fact that you can't simply say "You guys suck, you always will suck, you're on your own, bye". They need to see that they are not irrevocably "inferior". A democratic, human-rights-respecting Syria is not a shred inferior to an equally-democratic, equally-human-rights-respecting United States. Since I think it is outright wrong (factually and morally) to imply that a disregard for human rights is integral to the Syrian culture, you're not asking them to change their culture. There is no condescension or offence they can legitimately take. It's the responsibilty of the "good" nations to accept the "bad" nations when they're no longer bad, rather than hold racist or culturalist biases against them, and also the responsibility of the "good" nations to help the "bad" nations become less "bad". (Since it's not a binary system, and the list of nations goes from good to bad in a continual arc of grey area, you get in some problems right in the middle, but before that can be addressed, I think people need to agree on the obvious extremes). When Syria becomes equally democratic and human-rights-respecting as the US, it should have an equal say. Not before, and not after.

Yeah, I disagree with the promotion of democracy over human rights. Democracy is nice, but sometimes it needs to fall by the wayside to make room for human rights. If that's your issue, though, I urge you to join me in pushing for human-rights-oriented foreign policy, rather than democracy-oriented policy, instead of accepting a world government in which China and Russia get an equal veto to the US, Britain, and France.

I agree about the falling-economically thing--it will be surpassed by a close-ties nation or be cowed into allowing China to surpass it. (Thanks, Clinton, for that Most Favored Nation status-granting).