Is Europe really worth America's trouble?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13 Next
Chigeeng @ Tue May 03, 2005 4:51 pm
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
So when an American corporation does something you don't like, that's bad, right?
But I assume it's okay with you when Chinese, French, British, Canadian, and etc. corporations do something in their own interests? Which is exactly what the corporations' shareholders WANT them to do.
But I assume it's okay with you when Chinese, French, British, Canadian, and etc. corporations do something in their own interests? Which is exactly what the corporations' shareholders WANT them to do.
It doesn't matter the country of origin, if they are responsible for millions of deaths, fucking right it's bad.
Tman1 @ Tue May 03, 2005 5:01 pm
The Holocaust has a BIG effect on US foreign policy. Outside of Israel we have the largest Jewish population in the world and our awareness of this kind of thing is acute. The alleged genocide in Bosnia evoked the Holocaust and spurred US action in the 1990's. The failure of the US to respond to the slaughter in Rwanda is starting to have political ramifications here.
Our interest in human rights is everywhere and you'll notice the harshest critics of Bush on Abu Ghraib are Americans.
Links you want, links you get:
http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Ar ... Rabil.html
http://opinion.paifamily.com/?p=998
http://www.nationalreview.com/lerner/le ... 190749.asp
It's been on our national news lately. Maybe CBC isn't covering this.
Ok, maybe I'll grant you those sets of links, however you fail BIG time in arguing U.S involvment in things that do not concern them and simply basing things that happend 60 years ago, does not really hold up any sort of argument in context with this discussion. Do you deny the U.S has no interest in Africa or Asia where millions are being raped and killed? But hey, bring up the holocaust because thats more than justification in Americans eyes right? or maybe its just Iraq hmm? where Neo-cons, which you are more proving to be one, have roving eyes to see which American interests are for the best in Bushes eyes. Puuulease, think about something other than the holocaust because bringing that up to justify your argument, cmon you cant be that insecure.Thank you for providing a most intertaining discussion where "All hail the American liberators" where America can do no wrong and everybody just cant do anything at all". Now lets backtrack on topic here about Europe.
VoiceofEngland @ Tue May 03, 2005 5:22 pm
English subjects do not want to be part of the New F'N'E, and if we have to you can put one more star on your flag; that before being part of the French and German Communist movement.
BartSimpson @ Tue May 03, 2005 5:23 pm
Chigeeng Chigeeng:
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
So when an American corporation does something you don't like, that's bad, right?
But I assume it's okay with you when Chinese, French, British, Canadian, and etc. corporations do something in their own interests? Which is exactly what the corporations' shareholders WANT them to do.
But I assume it's okay with you when Chinese, French, British, Canadian, and etc. corporations do something in their own interests? Which is exactly what the corporations' shareholders WANT them to do.
It doesn't matter the country of origin, if they are responsible for millions of deaths, fucking right it's bad.
I can respect your consistency.
BartSimpson @ Tue May 03, 2005 5:41 pm
MasterBlaster, the USA has no vested interest in Indonesia, either, yet we sent our military there on a relief mission. Canada did the same so I suppose I could ask you what business of Canada's was it that Indonesia had a disaster?
The difference between a tsunami and a tyrant is negligible to the poor people who end up just as dead. Decent people do not let other people suffer.
Can everyone be saved? No.
Does everyone WANT to be saved? No.
You'll notice that the US & Canada did NOTHING for India after the tsunami because they not only refused offers of aid, they threatened military action against anyone attempting to send relief to stricken parts of India.
As for Mr. Hussein since he did not have WMDs he should have let the UN inspectors do their jobs and then he and his boys would likely still be raping, torturing, and murdering their fellow Iraqis. But no, he went posturing that he was developing nukes and the Clinton Administration said he was building nukes, the UN said he was building nukes, and even HE said he was building nukes. It should not have surprised him, then, when US tanks rolled into Baghdad.
Bosnia was invaded by NATO without UN sanction and, after so many years, the place is mostly stable and Croatia and Bosnia are poised to join the EU in recognition. And people are not being slaughtered en masse.
If your neighbor's house was on fire would you help them even though it isn't your business? Sure you would.
If your neighbor was beating the hell out of his kids and his wife you'd at least call the police even though it isn't any of your business, right?
Nations are neighbors on a global scale.
Tman1 @ Tue May 03, 2005 6:39 pm
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
MasterBlaster, the USA has no vested interest in Indonesia, either, yet we sent our military there on a relief mission. Canada did the same so I suppose I could ask you what business of Canada's was it that Indonesia had a disaster?
The difference between a tsunami and a tyrant is negligible to the poor people who end up just as dead. Decent people do not let other people suffer.
Can everyone be saved? No.
Does everyone WANT to be saved? No.
You'll notice that the US & Canada did NOTHING for India after the tsunami because they not only refused offers of aid, they threatened military action against anyone attempting to send relief to stricken parts of India.
As for Mr. Hussein since he did not have WMDs he should have let the UN inspectors do their jobs and then he and his boys would likely still be raping, torturing, and murdering their fellow Iraqis. But no, he went posturing that he was developing nukes and the Clinton Administration said he was building nukes, the UN said he was building nukes, and even HE said he was building nukes. It should not have surprised him, then, when US tanks rolled into Baghdad.
Bosnia was invaded by NATO without UN sanction and, after so many years, the place is mostly stable and Croatia and Bosnia are poised to join the EU in recognition. And people are not being slaughtered en masse.
If your neighbor's house was on fire would you help them even though it isn't your business? Sure you would.
If your neighbor was beating the hell out of his kids and his wife you'd at least call the police even though it isn't any of your business, right?
Nations are neighbors on a global scale.
The difference between a tsunami and a tyrant is negligible to the poor people who end up just as dead. Decent people do not let other people suffer.
Can everyone be saved? No.
Does everyone WANT to be saved? No.
You'll notice that the US & Canada did NOTHING for India after the tsunami because they not only refused offers of aid, they threatened military action against anyone attempting to send relief to stricken parts of India.
As for Mr. Hussein since he did not have WMDs he should have let the UN inspectors do their jobs and then he and his boys would likely still be raping, torturing, and murdering their fellow Iraqis. But no, he went posturing that he was developing nukes and the Clinton Administration said he was building nukes, the UN said he was building nukes, and even HE said he was building nukes. It should not have surprised him, then, when US tanks rolled into Baghdad.
Bosnia was invaded by NATO without UN sanction and, after so many years, the place is mostly stable and Croatia and Bosnia are poised to join the EU in recognition. And people are not being slaughtered en masse.
If your neighbor's house was on fire would you help them even though it isn't your business? Sure you would.
If your neighbor was beating the hell out of his kids and his wife you'd at least call the police even though it isn't any of your business, right?
Nations are neighbors on a global scale.
[quote]Does everyone WANT to be saved? No.
Which is EXACTLY the point I was trying to get across to you. Then again, I guess everybody in Iraq WANTED to be saved by the U.S right? Oh wait, the whole world wants to be saved by the U.S. You even said it yourself, Europe obviously cant tend to their own matters, it takes the U.S to clean up their mess. What mess? The only messes in this world are left by Uncle Sam and his bum buddy Bush. Nobody ASKED the U.S, nobody WANTED the U.S. So hmmm your foreign policy is pretty much just garbage now isnt it?
Zipperfish @ Tue May 03, 2005 6:49 pm
Re: the moral argument
We know that 5,000 people a day die from AIDS. That's a day. Far more kids die from easily preventable disease than Saddam could dream of killing. A third or the world's children go to bed hungry while Canada and the US have an obesity epidemic. We live like Ceasars, adn they would beg just for what we scrape off our plates. You pull back the camera and the whole morality issue looks kind of silly.
If you want to save lives, you don't need bombs.
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue May 03, 2005 6:50 pm
MasterBlaster MasterBlaster:
The Canadian Navy will do all that it can in contexts with INTERNATIONAL LAW. How much can you say the U.S followed International law? But maybe your right, maybe the Gov will not do anything, who knows so dont claim you do.
The FIRST law in International Law is that the nation with the power can do whatever it wants.
In fact, that's the ONLY international law.
Treaties and organizations are created by sovereign peers, and are only enforceable by sovereign peers. ---There is NO international legislature,* therefore there are NO international laws.
(*The U.N. is not a legislature, it's a convention of diplomats.)
.
Tman1 @ Tue May 03, 2005 6:53 pm
The FIRST law in International Law is that the nation with the power can do whatever it wants.
In fact, that's the ONLY international law.
Treaties and organizations are created by sovereign peers, and are only enforceable by sovereign peers. ---There is NO international legislature,* therefore there are NO international laws.
(*The U.N. is not a legislature, it's a convention of diplomats.)
.[/quote]
No that is not a LAW, otherwise the world would be in total anarchy. And no its not the ONLY international law. Its called Diplomacy, Nuclear diplomacy, New Diplomacy, I think your confusing diplomacy with law. Treaties and organizations are created to help the balance and ensure that no other power can preside over another(technically). By your thinking, every nation with the power to do anything, can do anything. Sorry, you forgeting about economic sanctions? Coalitions to prevent other powers from doing what they want?
Thats some nice thinking anarchist.
ManifestDestiny @ Tue May 03, 2005 7:20 pm
May be under Clinton in a pre 9/11 world we would have listened to other countires and put our own intrests on th back burner. Europe loved this agreement with Clinton. Now like Bush said he would rather see Americans fight under the US flag and not the UN flag everyone threw their hands up and pointed at us saying we are tyrants.
How can I put this nicely F#$K YOU! I like the cowboy politics. This is whatt it is you dont like just get out of the way. Europeans like to piss down your neck and tell you its raining.
Canrane @ Tue May 03, 2005 7:21 pm
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
There are still bad people in the world and the US may not be the most perfect country, but who else is going to keep the peace?
France?
Germany?
The UN?
Or the USA?
France?
Germany?
The UN?
Or the USA?
How about all of the above? It worked in the world wars (well, *against* germany...but still), it worked in Kosovo and it's working in Afghanistan. (The US is not the only country in A., just the biggest).
Why can't it work all the time? IMO, the role of the UN is to mobilize international efforts in such a way that no one country is keeping the peace, but rather, all of them are.
ManifestDestiny @ Tue May 03, 2005 7:23 pm
The UN LMAO. what have they solved?
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue May 03, 2005 7:26 pm
MasterBlaster MasterBlaster:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
The FIRST law in International Law is that the nation with the power can do whatever it wants.
In fact, that's the ONLY international law.
Treaties and organizations are created by sovereign peers, and are only enforceable by sovereign peers. ---There is NO international legislature,* therefore there are NO international laws.
(*The U.N. is not a legislature, it's a convention of diplomats.)
In fact, that's the ONLY international law.
Treaties and organizations are created by sovereign peers, and are only enforceable by sovereign peers. ---There is NO international legislature,* therefore there are NO international laws.
(*The U.N. is not a legislature, it's a convention of diplomats.)
No that is not a LAW, otherwise the world would be in total anarchy. And no its not the ONLY international law. Its called Diplomacy, Nuclear diplomacy, New Diplomacy, I think your confusing diplomacy with law. Treaties and organizations are created to help the balance and ensure that no other power can preside over another(technically). By your thinking, every nation with the power to do anything, can do anything. Sorry, you forgeting about economic sanctions? Coalitions to prevent other powers from doing what they want?...
No, it's the other way around.
Treaties are agreements created in lieu of law.
There's international law? Where's it's legislature? Where's it's statute books? Where are the international police that can arrest nations?
Every nation with the power to do anything, CAN do anything. A group of peer nations can create diplomatic pressure, but that's not law. A group of nations can also get together and sack another nation. (Poland, China, Germany are nice examples... )
Iraq invades Kuwait. Other nations get together and force it out. That wasn't law, that was power.
If China wants Taiwan, they're going to take it. And they're not going to consult a statute book to check if it's okay or not. ---They haven't done it yet, not because it would be illegal, but because the United States has a big f'ing navy and air force.
.
Canrane @ Tue May 03, 2005 7:37 pm
NYCisHome NYCisHome:
The UN LMAO. what have they solved?
Well, for starters, I don't think anything can truly be "solved" in the nice pat way that the word implies. There will be tragedies, mistakes etc. But I do think that the lives can be saved and progress can be made.
I'd say that on the whole, Bosnia, East Timor and Sierra Leone are examples of UN successes. I would also consider the weapons inspections in Iraq a success even when they were pulled out early.
Constantinople @ Tue May 03, 2005 7:39 pm
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
MasterBlaster, the USA has no vested interest in Indonesia, either, yet we sent our military there on a relief mission. Canada did the same so I suppose I could ask you what business of Canada's was it that Indonesia had a disaster?
The difference between a tsunami and a tyrant is negligible to the poor people who end up just as dead. Decent people do not let other people suffer.
Can everyone be saved? No.
Does everyone WANT to be saved? No.
You'll notice that the US & Canada did NOTHING for India after the tsunami because they not only refused offers of aid, they threatened military action against anyone attempting to send relief to stricken parts of India.
As for Mr. Hussein since he did not have WMDs he should have let the UN inspectors do their jobs and then he and his boys would likely still be raping, torturing, and murdering their fellow Iraqis. But no, he went posturing that he was developing nukes and the Clinton Administration said he was building nukes, the UN said he was building nukes, and even HE said he was building nukes. It should not have surprised him, then, when US tanks rolled into Baghdad.
Bosnia was invaded by NATO without UN sanction and, after so many years, the place is mostly stable and Croatia and Bosnia are poised to join the EU in recognition. And people are not being slaughtered en masse.
If your neighbor's house was on fire would you help them even though it isn't your business? Sure you would.
If your neighbor was beating the hell out of his kids and his wife you'd at least call the police even though it isn't any of your business, right?
Nations are neighbors on a global scale.
The difference between a tsunami and a tyrant is negligible to the poor people who end up just as dead. Decent people do not let other people suffer.
Can everyone be saved? No.
Does everyone WANT to be saved? No.
You'll notice that the US & Canada did NOTHING for India after the tsunami because they not only refused offers of aid, they threatened military action against anyone attempting to send relief to stricken parts of India.
As for Mr. Hussein since he did not have WMDs he should have let the UN inspectors do their jobs and then he and his boys would likely still be raping, torturing, and murdering their fellow Iraqis. But no, he went posturing that he was developing nukes and the Clinton Administration said he was building nukes, the UN said he was building nukes, and even HE said he was building nukes. It should not have surprised him, then, when US tanks rolled into Baghdad.
Bosnia was invaded by NATO without UN sanction and, after so many years, the place is mostly stable and Croatia and Bosnia are poised to join the EU in recognition. And people are not being slaughtered en masse.
If your neighbor's house was on fire would you help them even though it isn't your business? Sure you would.
If your neighbor was beating the hell out of his kids and his wife you'd at least call the police even though it isn't any of your business, right?
Nations are neighbors on a global scale.
Excellent post.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13 Next