Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 18:39 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:ris7j254s9vskcfaag555hditinlcjnl60(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:06:58 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egt5lk$8u0_003(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <b972j2hg5vph0kft82futt7v3sd8r5penb(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:43:04 +0100, Eeyore >>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to. You've had >>>>>to >>> work hard to >>>>>get to that position. >>>> >>>>From a eurocentric point of view, maybe so. But India and China and >>>>Japan and Africa don't count, apparently. >>> >>> Nor the eastern countries of Europe. >> >>While I don't agree with the rest of the world loathes the US argument, it >>is undeniable that most countries in the world have a low opinion of >>"America" (as an entity) and it's actions on the world stage. >> > > So all those people are emigrating here accidentally, based on some > misunderstanding about geography? Sorry, I didn't realise any countries had upped and moved to the US lately. You are talking about migrations of population which rarely (in modern times at least) has anything to do with a love of the new country. Also, you are presenting a strawman based on the very unrepresentative population samples. To make matters worse it largely supports the claim because the people left behind in those countries will continue to dislike the US and feed of each other even more. As I said, the majority of the countries in the world have a low opinion of the America an entity.
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 18:40 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:mrt7j2p1peqedn2mj7del4pqcmg0987q7m(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:24 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >><snip> >>> So I'm curious how some Europeans see this developing. >> >>Oddly from an outsiders perspective, lots of British people think of >>Europeans and Europe as an external entity. > > This much I decidedly knew. :) As it should be. There are some advantages to being an island nation.
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 18:45 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:ov08j299338u1a8v6bvp4t4djj4u40csbs(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:28:58 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Larkin wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >John Larkin wrote: >>> > >>> >> Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or >>> >> human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest >>> >> people in the world. >>> > >>> >And the USA'a *IS* ????? >>> > >>> >Graham >>> >>> I think the theory is that a democratic world, with free people and >>> free trade, will be better for everybody, us included. I've heard lots >>> worse theories. >>> >>> What's your version of utopia? >> >>Ceertainly one where you don't go to war to change ppls minds. >> > > Not to change Saddam's mind, when he wanted Kuwait? Not to change Pol > Pot's mind, to end the killing fields? No, the war doesn't change minds. It may alter immediate actions but that is different. Very little, historically, has been solved through war. Normally it is just pushed on to a later generation to deal with. I never realised it was armed US intervention which put paid to Pol Pot's regime. Sorry. I always thought it was the Vietnamese, who were then opposed by the Americans. When did the US invade and arrest Pol Pot?
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 19:02 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:fb18j2pef82gj5f9lucleh02kuss3f8d1e(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:07:46 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>> 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. > > Thet's the Joan Baez argument: killing is immoral, so you can't kill > one person to save a million. Not at all. You are now making this a moral judgement call which was never the initial point. You asked about a "Universal Human Right." For something to be a Universal Human Right, it must be a right for everyone (the Universal Human bit). This is the logical fallacy people make when they use "rights" too much, it becomes a watered down phrase. If you are asking about Universal Human Morals it is an entirely different question. Rights do not have a moral value. If you can kill one to save a million, can you kill a million to save one? Can you kill ten Africans to save a South American? Can you kill a thousand Americans to save a million Arabs? Morals are based on our upbringing and background. What is considered "moral" behaviour in a fundamental Christian society may well be very different from mine. As a result morals can not be considered "rights" nor universal. >>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. > > OK, then anything goes. Whoever had the most guns and bombs prevails, > and can kill all he wants, and it doesn't matter to you as long as > it's not you he's after. And you don't matter to us at all. A nice strawman. You said you were serious about this question but it appears not. You ask about Universal Human Rights but it appears you want to define a standard and code of behaviour based on moral judgement calls. This will also never happen because _your_ moral values are based on being brought up in a western democratic Christian nation and as such are different to some one who was (for example) brought up a Buddhist in Nepal. Your attempt at changing the direction of the question ("Whoever had the most guns and bombs prevails" etc) has nothing to do with universal human rights. Do you want to discuss should there be a universal set of behavioural standards towards others? >>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. > > So why not profiteer, if power is all the matters? Who said power is all that matters? You are arguing a different topic than the one here. If you think power is all that matters then yes, profiteer, but with that behaviour America would no longer be able to use the "just cause" argument. >>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? > > VietNam did that; good move. What was the US response? Did the US assist the Vietnamese? Still, there is (IMHO of course) no point in second guessing actions which were taken by governements a generation ago. The only point I wanted to make out of this, and I am sorry I brought it up if it heads even further away from the question, is the consistency issue. The Killing Fields were pretty large scale slaughter but no Western intervention took place. This is what weakens the "Just Cause" argument. >> >>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. > > The fault of the "international community", whatever that may be, is > that there is no accepted definition of human rights, and no concensus > on enforcing them even if there were a definition. How can there be an accepted definition of human rights? It is hard to define what a "right" is, let alone what ones there are. Enforcing rights is another tricky issue as it often involves taking away peoples "rights" which create a vicious circle. >>What criteria should the US use to determine which countries they will >>"save" and which they wont? > > If there are no standards, and there can't be standards, anything we > damned well please. The strawman returns. It was an honest question, do you have an honest answer? Was that your honest answer because the problem is the rest of the world perceives it as "anything we please."
From: Michael A. Terrell on 16 Oct 2006 20:36
Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > > The article I read pointed out that the soldiers explicitly were under > a Euro command and that if they were ordered _into_ their own country > for some reason, that they must have already sworn to uphold the Euro > command and not obey those in command in their own home country. What happens when they are ordered to attack their own country? -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |