Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 16:07 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0ue5j2h6h8lrp3e6dlhs19hh6pli9opmko(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:45:22 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >> >>Using force to make other nations act in the way America wants them to is, >>and should always be, unacceptable. It doesn't matter if America has their >>(other nation) best interests at heart. >> > > That is the heart of the issue. If Idi Amin or Pol Pot decides to kill > a few million of "their own" citizens, do they have the soverign right > to do so? Is there any such thing as universal human rights? Does the > government of China "own" Tibet or Taiwan? Do we stand aside from > genocides and starvation because intervention is, for some reason, > "unacceptable"? Well, a good question and one that is very difficult to answer. There are no "universal human rights" as such a concept would be unenforceable. For example if the right to life is a universal human right, the US has violated this every time it's soldiers kill some one. As soon as there is an "acceptable" casualty rate the universal right is lost for everyone. If there is a "universal right" which allows the US to intervene in a country which is acting in a manner in which it disagrees, that right _must_ also allow other countries to intervene if the US acts in a manner in which they disagree. This is obviously not the case so that can't be enforceable. I am fairly sure there are no "universal rights" human or otherwise. As to the second issue, should the US intervene? I think an important thing is that the US, if it wishes to intervene for "good reasons" gets the support of the international community to avoid looking like it is profiteering. For me personally, the _most_ important thing is consistency in actions. If Country X is subject to regime change because of [INSERT LEADER] then the US should treat all similar countries in a similar way. Dealing and trading with oppressive regimes while attacking others is inconsistent and undermines any "just cause" argument. Invading a country because the ruler is killing lots of people, then killing lots of people undermines the "just cause" argument. Intervention in sovereign states is not a straight forward matter. Did the US invade Cambodia to protect people from the Killing Fields? Did the US intervene in Argentina or Chile? Where are the US soldiers in Sierra Leone? Etc. Or is it the case that the US cherry pick the times they will act and the times they wont, when they do act it is "just cause" when the don't it is the "international community" at fault. What criteria should the US use to determine which countries they will "save" and which they wont?
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 16:08 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:c9f7j29angn5jc6li74qmd6mck0r451lp3(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:52:26 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:rvc5j2dlfhbk4lpo0ec1324af8p2o2v9hi(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:03:52 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>You never responded to my question about your alignment with global >>>>cartels. >>>>As your attitude and posting signal you are indeed so aligned, I will >>>>assume >>>>your lack of response means yes. >>> >>> --- >>> Not necessarily. >> >>Ok >> >>> I don't generally read your posts since you seem to be nominally >>> sensible and reading _all_ the posts in this thread is tiresome. >> >>Fair one. >> >>> Also, sometimes I read a post and disagree with it, but just don't >>> want to be bothered with answering it and starting another long >>> harangue. >> >>Again, fair comment. >> >>The situation remains though. You asked a question which was nothing but a >>logicall fallacy. >> >>> --- >>> >>>>>>You're utterly mad. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> From Gershwin's "They all laughed": >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ..."They all laughed at Christopher Columbus >>>>> When he said the world was round >>>>> They all laughed when Edison recorded sound >>>>> They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother >>>>> When they said that man could fly >>>>> >>>>> They told Marconi >>>>> Wireless was a phony >>>>> It's the same old cry"... >>>> >>>>Yet they also tell people who are mad they are mad. For every Wright >>>>brother >>>>there are millions of idiots and nutcases around the world. The odds are >>>>stacked against genius. >>> >>> --- >>> And yet... :-) >> >>And yet I have never seen a genius post on USENET. :-) >> > --- > How would you know? ;) The header field would say X-GENIUS: Yes
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 16:09 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:DzQYg.375$T_1.365(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > "Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote in > message news:bjOYg.9$GM7.6(a)newsfe04.lga... >> John Larkin wrote: >> >>> Some cultures worship death. Yuk. >>> >> maybe death is a better alternative in those >> cultures? > > And which cultures would those be, that worship death? Christianity.
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 16:15 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4533DC9F.62760F0E(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > JoeBloe wrote: >> > >> >> Why don't we ask someone like Steven Biko... Oh... that's right... >> >> we can't. You bastards murdered him. >> > >> > Absolutely *nothing* to do with Britain, the Empire or whatever. >> > >> > Have you never heard of the RSA ? Republic of South Africa. An >> > independent >> > country. >> >> Especially as it was an different European country which colonised most >> of >> South Africa. You can blame Britain for the first Concentration Camps >> though. > > They were somewhat different to the German variety though. Well less gas and less Jews, more Boers though... The problem is, some people in this debate think that saying "The Brits did [INSERT HISTORY SNIP]" so you cant criticise the US for doing it. This is madness. It is like going to court for assault and saying "you cant jail me that guy over there beat some one up fifty years ago."
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 16:15
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4533E3B7.FC5B649F(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote >> > Eeyore wrote: >> >> Jamie wrote: >> >>>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>It's the countries we saved, specifically France and Britain, that >> >>>>>are >> >>>>>the most rabid critics. >> >>>> >> >>>>Nothing to do with the war. >> >>>> >> >>>>We simply have the experience of world affairs to see the faults that >> >>>>need criticism. >> >>>> >> >>>>You might stop to think which 2 European countries had most to do >> >>>>with >> >>>>early N America whilst your at it. >> >>>> >> >>>>Graham >> >>> >> >>>and what part did the UK play in this? was it something >> >>>to do with a Boston Tea party? and the red coats landing >> >>>on our shores? >> >> >> >> Who do you think created Boston and why does it have the name of an >> >> English town? >> >> >> >> Graham >> >> >> > we were just being nice to you, so that we could make our big move!:) >> >> Yeah, New York, Washington, New Jersey, New Bedford, Salisbury, Richmond, >> Rockingham, Southport, Fairfax, York, Lancaster, Newark, Hempstead, >> Southampton, Bristol, Hartford, Warwick, Worcester (etc) weren't enough. >> You >> had to name Boston "Boston" as well... > > St Albans even ! Must have been scraping the barrel there.... |