Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UN and US bashing.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UN and US bashing.

    The UN could just as easily stand for 'Useless Nations'. A gaggle of lawyers that deliberate endlessly while genocide and sadistic regimes flourish around them. I think that for the bulk of them their true loyalty lies with their own agendas and best interests and 'how can I best stay in power of my own country'. The mythical 'peace at all costs' motto doesn't work. What are the real ethical issues and the most responsible courses of action? And what is the quality of the peace they are so willing to enforce on others? Technically, Hitler and Stalin were at peace until the collective invasion of Poland (funny how war was only declared on Germany!), so by the UN view of the 'absolute, sacred and holy rights of a sovereign nation' neither would have been interered with had the invasion not occurred. Their genocides could have continued "peacefully".

    All the quibbling in the world over bylaws and resolutions doesn't make their typical lack of action ethical or right. Thank god the US and Brits are willing to fight for the rights and freedoms of others.

    Oh, I forgot - oil! Hmm - I don't recall any vast natural resources in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia that we were so greedily rushing in to steal.

  • #2
    The UN could just as easily stand for 'Useless Nations'. A gaggle of lawyers that deliberate endlessly while genocide and sadistic regimes flourish around them. I think that for the bulk of them their true loyalty lies with their own agendas and best interests and 'how can I best stay in power of my own country'. The mythical 'peace at all costs' motto doesn't work. What are the real ethical issues and the most responsible courses of action? And what is the quality of the peace they are so willing to enforce on others? Technically, Hitler and Stalin were at peace until the collective invasion of Poland (funny how war was only declared on Germany!), so by the UN view of the 'absolute, sacred and holy rights of a sovereign nation' neither would have been interered with had the invasion not occurred. Their genocides could have continued "peacefully".

    All the quibbling in the world over bylaws and resolutions doesn't make their typical lack of action ethical or right. Thank god the US and Brits are willing to fight for the rights and freedoms of others.

    Oh, I forgot - oil! Hmm - I don't recall any vast natural resources in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia that we were so greedily rushing in to steal.
    "Technically, Hitler and Stalin were at peace until the collective invasion of Poland (funny how war was only declared on Germany!)"

    Obviously you have rather passionately commited yourself to a view of history to follow politics instead of the other way around. So it doesn't make too much sense to point it out, but, Germany was the only aggressor in Poland. The Soviet Union did not enter the war until Germany invaded it. It was only then that Stalin invaded Poland.

    As for Bosnia and Kosovo, it was not the US that was the principle response or goad. It was European pronouncements of genocide and the mobilization of NATO that was the response there. And the issue was not actually one of principle at all, it was over land and space. These are rapidly replacing energy as things to fight over as global overpopulation begins to make its impact felt. This is the issue in Iraq as well. Population explosions among the Kurds and Shi'i are leading them to demand space and resources of their own. It is an old problem with the Kurds, but after the Islamic revolution in Iran it is an issue with their sympathizers in Iraq as well.
    Get the US out of NATO, now!

    Comment


    • #3
      [QUOTE]Originally posted by SparceMatrix

      So it doesn't make too much sense to point it out, but, Germany was the only aggressor in Poland. The Soviet Union did not enter the war until Germany invaded it. It was only then that Stalin invaded Poland.

      My intent wasn't to open up that can of worms but to make a point. But since we seem to be on it...The agreement was to divide Poland along the Vistula river. The German forces had gone beyond and actually had to pull back per the agreement - much to the chagrin of the generals - as told by Guderian. It's doubtful that Stalin came in purely as a response or with some notion of protecting the Poles. Stalin was equally intent on land grabbing, but then this may depend on what sources you want to believe. In any case, there was a treaty between the two until Barbarossa.


      As for Bosnia and Kosovo, it was not the US that was the principle response or goad. It was European pronouncements of genocide and the mobilization of NATO that was the response there. And the issue was not actually one of principle at all, it was over land and space.

      I disagree. The Europeans and UN sat on the genocide occurring in their backyard in Bosnia for how long? What was the coercive force that impelled NATO to finally act? With Kosovo I recall great international howling against the US for their role in stopping the slaughter.

      Regardless of whatever hidden agendas may motivate a reaction there is still always the principle and face value outcome; the fact that a people were liberated from genocide, slaughter, torture, etc. There are numerous forces from within trying to manipulate US foreign policy but the bottom line often seems to be the principle of human rights.

      If no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, do you think the US was wrong to ultimately free the Iraqis?

      Comment


      • #4
        Regardless of whatever hidden agendas may motivate a reaction there is still always the principle and face value outcome; the fact that a people were liberated from genocide, slaughter, torture, etc. There are numerous forces from within trying to manipulate US foreign policy but the bottom line often seems to be the principle of human rights.

        If no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, do you think the US was wrong to ultimately free the Iraqis?
        Of course the fact of the matter is that there was nothing like genocide at all ocurring in either Bosnia or Kosovo. All reports saying there were turned out to be either bogus or a distortion of reports of the civil wars that were going on.

        As for Iraq, it remains to be seen what the consequence of an invasion is. A crucial thing to watch is what the role of the Kurds will be. Since the Kurds do not observe borders in the areas they occupy, they are poorly motivated to seek representation in an Iraqi government. It would be even more ominous to find a Kurdish state in some Iraqi federation. Experienced observers could probably make similar observations about the Shi'i Islamic Revolution in Iraq, but the Kurds have the most momentum among non-Muslims with public relations. They have made the most noise about what they want for the longer period of time.

        WMDs in Iraq is another issue that like reports of terrorist activity there is going to quietly go away. The issue here, like Serbia and Bosnia, is space and land for people who least deserve it and are willing to kill and incite violence for it.
        Get the US out of NATO, now!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SparceMatrix


          Of course the fact of the matter is that there was nothing like genocide at all ocurring in either Bosnia or Kosovo. All reports saying there were turned out to be either bogus or a distortion of reports of the civil wars that were going on.

          WMDs in Iraq is another issue that like reports of terrorist activity there is going to quietly go away. The issue here, like Serbia and Bosnia, is space and land for people who least deserve it and are willing to kill and incite violence for it.
          You got me on this one. I recall more than a few media reports of mass graves and first hand witnesses to such slaughter. Was this all dog-wagging?

          A sizeable terror camp was reportedly found in N Iraq.
          Space and depopulation have been undercurrents for a very long time in human history. Maybe it's not my nature to believe that human rights aren't occasionally fought over as well - even if there are other attached motives.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SparceMatrix
            Obviously you have rather passionately commited yourself to a view of history to follow politics instead of the other way around. So it doesn't make too much sense to point it out, but, Germany was the only aggressor in Poland. The Soviet Union did not enter the war until Germany invaded it. It was only then that Stalin invaded Poland.
            I fail to see the distinction. Surely a country that joins in on a war of aggression is still an aggressor?

            Comment


            • #7
              You got me on this one. I recall more than a few media reports of mass graves and first hand witnesses to such slaughter. Was this all dog-wagging?

              A sizeable terror camp was reportedly found in N Iraq.
              Space and depopulation have been undercurrents for a very long time in human history. Maybe it's not my nature to believe that human rights aren't occasionally fought over as well - even if there are other attached motives.
              Civil war is easily accompanied by mass graves. People lie about what happens at scenes of slaughter. A good indicator of what actually happened is the lack or reports of what has been going on at the Hague.

              Northern Iraq is Kurdish dominated territory and was policed by the NFZ too. The Kurds themselves have long experience with terrorism and so it would be no suprise to find terrorist training camps there.
              Get the US out of NATO, now!

              Comment


              • #8
                Civil war is easily accompanied by mass graves. People lie about what happens at scenes of slaughter. A good indicator of what actually happened is the lack or reports of what has been going on at the Hague.

                Maybe we're quibbling over semantics. Where does genocide begin and mere civil war end off? I know genocide is the systematic extermination of a culture or race, but if mass graves are found to also contain the entire male youth populations of certain villages does that then extend beyond civil war? Does it also justify outside interference?
                Should the sovereignity of a nation be absolute and unquestionable, regardless of what transpires within it's borders?
                I've never bought into that one.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Maybe we're quibbling over semantics. Where does genocide begin and mere civil war end off? I know genocide is the systematic extermination of a culture or race, but if mass graves are found to also contain the entire male youth populations of certain villages does that then extend beyond civil war? Does it also justify outside interference?

                  Should the sovereignity of a nation be absolute and unquestionable, regardless of what transpires within it's borders?
                  I've never bought into that one.
                  The difference between civil war and genocide is not easily confused by semantics. Who else but the youthful male population would be participating in a civil war? Such finds contradict the claims of genocide not support them. Semantics is an analysis happily applied to a lie.

                  The sovereignty of a nation is a state that is either respected as a matter of principle or not. It doesn't matter whether you are invading it or not. You can invade a country to restore its sovereignty or you can be native born corrupting it from within against its sovereignty. Why would anyone question the sovereignty of a country based on its affairs within its borders even if invasion seemed necessary?

                  Who questions the sovereignty of nations? Empires do.
                  Get the US out of NATO, now!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Lurker

                    Should the sovereignity of a nation be absolute and unquestionable, regardless of what transpires within it's borders?
                    I've never bought into that one.
                    At what point do you draw the line? Who decides when sovereignty should be questioned? Who has the right to question sovereingty?

                    I think unless the sovereignty of another nation is clearly and undeaniably threatened by an invasion or blatant ecomonic/political interference, sovereignty should be respected.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SparceMatrix

                      The difference between civil war and genocide is not easily confused by semantics. Who else but the youthful male population would be participating in a civil war?
                      Apparently it is.
                      By male youths I was referring to boys, not young men. The accounts given involved numerous such bodies and many other instances of wholesale slaughter. Slaughtering children and elderly is hardly an accurate target for a civil war. In fact I believe you mentioned earlier in the thread that the Europeans pronounced genocide. Genocide seems to have a more politically correct name now of ethnic cleansing. Perhaps that sounds more socially acceptable. From what I'm reading in this thread, all eye witnesses to such mass murders were lying. I find that hard to believe.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        By male youths I was referring to boys, not young men. The accounts given involved numerous such bodies and many other instances of wholesale slaughter. Slaughtering children and elderly is hardly an accurate target for a civil war. In fact I believe you mentioned earlier in the thread that the Europeans pronounced genocide. Genocide seems to have a more politically correct name now of ethnic cleansing. Perhaps that sounds more socially acceptable. From what I'm reading in this thread, all eye witnesses to such mass murders were lying. I find that hard to believe.
                        Male youths are not easily confused with boys. And why would boys occupy a mass grave all by themselves? It would be very easy to summarize all of the events surrounding the civil war in Serbia over Kosovo yet no such summary exists anywhere. No, "ethnic cleansing" was the term used to make accusations against the Serbs, because genocide describes the act of killing people and "ethnic cleansing" encompasses just about any pressures against some ethnic population you can pose in your own mind. The term is novel and doesn't appear have much future. The trick in the anti-Serb propoganda was to make "ethnic cleansing" sound like genocide. You had to speak the word on the public airways with precisely the right tone and hush to make it sound like something unspeakable was happening to the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. And the subject of ethnic Albanian terrorist was never addressed with anything like the same care.

                        By the way, yet another ethnic Albanian terrorist front has emerged in Kosovo. They tried to blow up a bridge in Kosovo and nearly killed many people. The act was averted and the ethnic Albanian organ overseeing things in Kosovo refused to condemn the act under pressure from UNMIK saying they had more important things to do.
                        Get the US out of NATO, now!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Martin Schenkel

                          At what point do you draw the line? Who decides when sovereignty should be questioned? Who has the right to question sovereingty?

                          I think unless the sovereignty of another nation is clearly and undeaniably threatened by an invasion or blatant ecomonic/political interference, sovereignty should be respected.
                          I think I draw the line with the torture and slaughter of many thousands of a nations people by an existing regime. There seemed to be a flippant view that if the Iraqi people didn't want Hussein then they should have gotten rid of him. That doesn't work in today's age of high tech surveillance, electronics, automatic weapons, armored vehicles, etc. Not unless you have a trained army on your side.
                          Those living in a free country can take that freedom for granted and can afford the luxury of such a view.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SparceMatrix


                            Male youths are not easily confused with boys. And why would boys occupy a mass grave all by themselves? It would be very easy to summarize all of the events surrounding the civil war in Serbia over Kosovo yet no such summary exists anywhere. No, "ethnic cleansing" was the term used to make accusations against the Serbs, because genocide describes the act of killing people and "ethnic cleansing" encompasses just about any pressures against some ethnic population you can pose in your own mind. The term is novel and doesn't appear have much future. The trick in the anti-Serb propoganda was to make "ethnic cleansing" sound like genocide. You had to speak the word on the public airways with precisely the right tone and hush to make it sound like something unspeakable was happening to the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. And the subject of ethnic Albanian terrorist was never addressed with anything like the same care.

                            By the way, yet another ethnic Albanian terrorist front has emerged in Kosovo. They tried to blow up a bridge in Kosovo and nearly killed many people. The act was averted and the ethnic Albanian organ overseeing things in Kosovo refused to condemn the act under pressure from UNMIK saying they had more important things to do.
                            I never said boys occupied a mass grave all by themselves. There were accounts of all males of various villages being rounded up and slaughtered, including children. Genocide or ethnic cleansing, whatever you want to call it, the systematic slaughter of innocents goes way beyond civil war. I'm getting a passionate defense of the Serbs and their actions here. I never said the Bosnians and Abanians were ALL angels. But the rounding up and slaughter of children, woman and elderly I can't condone. I don't care which side is doing it.
                            Here's a link that covers both Bosnia and Kosovo, the genocide reports and war crime accusations plus much more:
                            http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports.html

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The UN never had jurisdiction beyond the control of it's member states. If you have a beef with the UN, in so far as it applies to security issues, then you have a beef with the member states.

                              The way the UN was setup was to prevent war between power blocs and in that respects it has succeeded. If you want to give the UN more power and jurisdiciton over it's member states, beyond what they themselves dictate, then you are asking for something nobody will accept.

                              What you REALLY want is the UN to validate US actions no matter what they are - but not the actions of others. Well, either that or one world government.

                              In either case, good luck. If the US won't even accept the ICC there's no chance in hell they're going to accept a larger UN role under the current administration.
                              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X