Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 The real problem
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  10:04:02  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1029-25.htm

quote:
But incompetence is a side issue. The real problem is, and always has been, that it is illegal — not to mention immoral — for a country to invade another country, in other words, to wage a war of aggression.


Nothing incompetent about it. The U.S. has been interfering in the affairs of others, and attacking other people since its founding. What you see is what was intended. If they couldn't take it over outright, they'd finish the job Bush I started by completely destroying the country, and tearing it apart.

They are criminals and we need to start treating them as such.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  10:10:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
Gorgo - I'm curious. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, what should have been the appropriate response by the US and/or the world community, in your opinion?

If you have already stated your opinion on this in another post, my apologies, please direct me to it.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Edited by - pleco on 10/30/2006 10:11:19
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  14:31:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:
The real problem is, and always has been, that it is illegal — not to mention immoral — for a country to invade another country, in other words, to wage a war of aggression.


I'm quite confused with the above quote. It sounds like it is saying that the invading of any country is a war of aggression. Certainly that is not the case.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  15:35:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message
quote:
I'm quite confused with the above quote. It sounds like it is saying that the invading of any country is a war of aggression. Certainly that is not the case.


Stated that way, it would certainly be the case. Simply invading a country is an act of aggression. Invading a country without some due process is a violation of international law.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  17:04:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:

Stated that way, it would certainly be the case. Simply invading a country is an act of aggression. Invading a country without some due process is a violation of international law.


When you say "Simply" do you mean with no good reason? Certainly there are reasons (even if hypothetical) to invade a country.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  17:11:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by pleco

Gorgo - I'm curious. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, what should have been the appropriate response by the US and/or the world community, in your opinion?

If you have already stated your opinion on this in another post, my apologies, please direct me to it.



The appropriate response would be for the U.S. to attempt to build a more democratic U.N. That is, not democratic for the leaders of nations, but for its people.

What do you think the appropriate response the world should have taken when the U.S. attacked Panama, or many of the other places that they illegally attacked?

Even if you think that the U.S. did not want Iraq to invade Kuwait
quote:
http://consortiumnews.com/2003/022703a.html
As Foreign Policy magazine observed, “the United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.” [Foreign Policy, Jan.-Feb. 2003]


then you must understand that there is a process by which the UN Charter allows for such matters. Negotiation is one of the keys. Remember George "no negotiations" Bush? He screwed up many possible opportunities to solve the "problem" without carpet bombing the country for 42 days and targeting the civilian infrastructure.


I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  17:24:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo...

They are criminals and we need to start treating them as such.
We are aware that you perceive administrations who initiate military action against other nations as criminals. Is your proposed solution, "We need to start treating them as such," or are you just complaining again? And if that is your proposed solution, can you elaborate with some rational, practical steps which might be undertaken for implementing that as a solution?
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  17:30:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message
No. You are not reading me correctly. Those who illegally initiate military action against other people are criminals.

Please read my previous posts in this thread for my suggestions.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  17:50:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo

quote:
Originally posted by pleco

Gorgo - I'm curious. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, what should have been the appropriate response by the US and/or the world community, in your opinion?

If you have already stated your opinion on this in another post, my apologies, please direct me to it.



The appropriate response would be for the U.S. to attempt to build a more democratic U.N. That is, not democratic for the leaders of nations, but for its people.



That is the response to one country invading another? I was asking for the immediate response, not a long term solution to the problems of the UN.

quote:

What do you think the appropriate response the world should have taken when the U.S. attacked Panama, or many of the other places that they illegally attacked?


This doesn't answer my original question.

quote:

Even if you think that the U.S. did not want Iraq to invade Kuwait
quote:
http://consortiumnews.com/2003/022703a.html
As Foreign Policy magazine observed, “the United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.” [Foreign Policy, Jan.-Feb. 2003]


then you must understand that there is a process by which the UN Charter allows for such matters. Negotiation is one of the keys. Remember George "no negotiations" Bush? He screwed up many possible opportunities to solve the "problem" without carpet bombing the country for 42 days and targeting the civilian infrastructure.



This is closer to an answer. You think that negotiations should have been tried.

Then that would also be the answer do when the US invades other countries. Negotiations should have been attempted. To my knowledge, they never have been, yes?

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Edited by - pleco on 10/30/2006 17:51:32
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  17:58:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message
What passes for negotiations. Much like what is now happening in Korea and Iran. Excuses for attacking others.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  17:59:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message
quote:
Then that would also be the answer do when the US invades other countries. Negotiations should have been attempted. To my knowledge, they never have been, yes?


Actually, what I think should have happened is that the U.S. probably should not have done their best to arrange for Iraq to attack Kuwait. Note that I said probably, as no one really knows for sure.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  18:50:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo...

No. You are not reading me correctly. Those who illegally initiate military action against other people are criminals.
So after they have been tried and convicted, at the point where it has been decided through official protocol, where it has been demonstrated that they "illegally initiate military action against other people," then they are criminals? Or after Gorgo has declared them to have initiated that action illegally?
quote:
Please read my previous posts in this thread for my suggestions.
The only comment you made above which appears to even remotely be a suggestion to solve your problem is...
quote:
The appropriate response would be for the U.S. to attempt to build a more democratic U.N. That is, not democratic for the leaders of nations, but for its people.
If you consider that rational and/or practical, how do you propose such a solution be initiated? What steps should be undertaken by whom in order to get that process working?
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  18:54:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message
quote:
Or after Gorgo has declared them to have initiated that action illegally?


For what reason does GeeMack talk this way, do you suppose?

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  18:58:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message
quote:
The real problem is, and always has been, that it is illegal — not to mention immoral — for a country to invade another country, in other words, to wage a war of aggression.

In most cases, from a moral point of view, this is most certainly true. But I don't think that this is necessarily always the truth (note, I'm not arguing that the US should have invaded Iraq). I can think of a few hypothetical scenarios where it would be immoral NOT to invade a country. For example, say country A and B have been hating eachother for a while. Country A now claims that it will soon have finished developing biological weapons that will be unleashed on their enemies some time next year. Would it be immoral for country B (or country C for that matter) to attack country A to save the lives of the people of country B (and potentially A and C as well)? I don't think so. Maybe you don't either, but that's the impression one gets from your opening post.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  19:02:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message
The opening post and the article are both about wars of aggression. It is illegal to attack other countries because they have weapons unless those weapons pose an imminent threat. Then, a country can remove that imminent threat, and take the matter to the UNSC.

Certainly, the UNSC can and does act illegally, such as when they approved Bush I's attack against the people of Iraq, however, the U.N. Charter is the law of the land.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Edited by - Gorgo on 10/30/2006 19:05:22
Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2006 :  19:13:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
Okay, so can we take it you don't really have a rational, practical solution to offer, and that you are again just complaining?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.5 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000