The Iraq Thread

[Longinius 1]

"Aren't these institutions in effect operating like a world government and telling other nations what they can and cannot due according to some universally accepted moral principles?"

The UN only expects its members to follow what they say. Membership is voulentary. They might try and influence other nations, but influencing is not the same as attacking.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hear people say over and over and over again, that it isn't up to any nation to tell another how to live, but they never explain why.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, I'll make an attempt to explain why. There is not a single system in world history that considered itself being wrong. Just as we today think that our style of democracy is the right thing did the communists and the nazis. Do you think that Hitler thought of himself as a bad guy? Hell no! He was very certain that he was making the world a "better" place. And there lies the point, the definition of "better". History has shown over and over again that there is no unified absolute set of moral rules and guidelines. This is from a secular point of view. If you wish to refer to religious grounds, then it's a whole new game. So I'll stick to the secular point of view in this post.

You mention the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Those are arbitrary concepts that do not even have the benifit of a historical support. I can define a completely different set of "rights". Say for instance that in denoir's system each individual has the "right" of getting a new car for free each week, not having to work and the pursuit of nakedness. Those are all very nice "rights" as a matter of fact, I'd gladly exchange some of my current rights for those. I'd much rather like not having to work then having the right to run for political office.

I think that most of you would agree that my "rights" would be welcomed by most of the people in the world. Does that give me the right to bomb USA to give the people of America those freedoms?

One typical example often mentioned of "oppression" is how women are treated in the muslim world. What we see as the oppression of individuals they see as strengthening the families. Who are we to say what their priorities should be?

I am also a believer of social evolution. Even if democracy would be the ultimate form of social arrangement the premature introduction of it can have disastrous effects. In our western society the modern concept of democracy evolved for a long time before it was activly introduced. Africa is a good example of the damage one can do to cultures and societies when you enforce quick modernization. During the colonial era we rushed things, enforced our ideas and the results have been really bad.

We must let other cultures to have their own cultural and social development without our interference. Even if we succeed in converting them to our creed we destroy the opportunity of letting it evolve to something else, that might in the end have been better then our system.

[PitViper 0]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,155)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hear people say over and over and over again, that it isn't up to any nation to tell another how to live, but they never explain why.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, I'll make an attempt to explain why. There is not a single system in world history that considered itself being wrong. Just as we today think that our style of democracy is the right thing did the communists and the nazis. Do you think that Hitler thought of himself as a bad guy? Hell no! He was very certain that he was making the world a "better" place. And there lies the point, the definition of "better". History has shown over and over again that there is no unified absolute set of moral rules and guidelines. This is from a secular point of view. If you wish to refer to religious grounds, then it's a whole new game. So I'll stick to the secular point of view in this post.

You mention the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Those are arbitrary concepts that do not even have the benifit of a historical support. I can define a completely different set of "rights". Say for instance that in denoir's system each individual has the "right" of getting a new car for free each week, not having to work and the pursuit of nakedness. Those are all very nice "rights" as a matter of fact, I'd gladly exchange some of my current rights for those. I'd much rather like not having to work then having the right to run for political office.

I think that most of you would agree that my "rights" would be welcomed by most of the people in the world. Does that give me the right to bomb USA to give the people of America those freedoms?<span id='postcolor'>

It's sad that you would be so quick to cast aside liberal democracies for some system thats fashionable or trendy that promises weekly autos and unlimited welfare but delivers misery.  oh wait.. you've been doing that for several decades now. That's ok.  Your socialist-minded systems are moving quickly toward insolvency.  

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 10 2003,21:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's sad that you would be so quick to cast aside liberal democracies for some system thats fashionable or trendy that promises the world and delivers misery.

 <span id='postcolor'>

No, I personally believe in liberal democracies, but I don't think that it gives me the right to enforce it on others. I am for instance against the capital punishment because I believe it is barbaric and has no place in a democracy, but that doesn't mean that I think that we should bomb USA.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh wait.. you've been doing that for several decades now. That's ok. Your socialist-minded systems are moving quickly toward insolvency. <span id='postcolor'>

Could you say what rights you think that you have that we don't?

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 10 2003,12:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's a hillarious signature.  It's like having a North Korean guy have a signature that says:  I support Communism in France.<span id='postcolor'>

A communist probably would do that. I'm sure you wouldn't bat an eyelash. Frankly, he can say what he wants.. of course its most likely coerced.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to mention the statue of liberty, which is a complete oxymoron in current U.S./France/Iraq situation.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't worry, the Iraqis will have their liberty no thanks to the leftists in Europe.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,15:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I personally believe in liberal democracies, but I don't think that it gives me the right to enforce it on others.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry. We believe that the human conscience yearns for a free, liberal system implicitly.  No man takes on shackles based on empty promises and utopian dreams unless deceived. Do you honestly believe the Iraqis and North Koreans have personally chosen and love the brutal dictatorship they have been placed under?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh wait.. you've been doing that for several decades now. That's ok.  Your socialist-minded systems are moving quickly toward insolvency.  <span id='postcolor'>

Could you say what rights you think that you have that we don't?<span id='postcolor'>

We have far more control of our personal finances.  We can also choose whatever healthplan we like and we only pay for exactly what we are getting. Also, our financial system isn't going to collapse in less than 30 years. Socialist systems != economic liberty.

[Longinius 1]

"Don't worry, the Iraqis will have their liberty no thanks to the leftists in Europe."

Or the politicians and oilmagnates in Washington.

I am quite convinced that a puppetregime wont get very old in Iraq.

"We have far more control of our personal finances.  We can also choose whatever healthplan we like and we only pay for exactly what we are getting. Socialist systems != economic liberty."

Haha, you crack me up. I doubt you have any more control of your personal finances than I do. In what sense would you?

As for healthplans, dont you think we can make that choice aswell? We can chose either public healthcare which is a bit cheaper or private healthcare which is more expensive. Unlike America however, every Swedish citizen can go to any public hospital and get help. Regardless of insurances or healthplans.

[Schoeler 0]

Denoir, I think that is where we fundamentally part ways, in our differing philosophies. I believe in Mill's secular philosophy of Utilitarianism, and to some exten Kant's philosophies as well. I think there are certain universal rights, some of which appear in the Declaration of Independence, but not all of which do. At the bottom I believe in doing what is best for the greatest amount of people, and that means fighting to support what as I see as their fundamental and universal rights, like the right to remain alive, to not be tortured or oppressed, and to select their form of government whether it be democracy, socialism or monarchy. I do not support dictatorships, theocracies or corrupt monarchies, totalitarian democracies, or any corrupt regime for that matter. Locke said that a social contract exists between government and mankind and when either side fails to hold up its end of the bargain, the government is dissolved and a new one is formed, either by force or by peaceful internal means if they exist.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 10 2003,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Haha, you crack me up. I doubt you have any more control of your personal finances than I do. In what sense would you?<span id='postcolor'>

The government doesn't make all my critical economic choices and forces me to fund its choice and its choice for everyone else.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for healthplan, dont you think we can make that choice aswell? We can chose either public healthcare which is a bit cheaper of private healthcare which is more expensive.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm pretty sure everyone is still paying for public healthcare whether you choose public or not. Thats exactly what I'm talking about.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unlike America however, every Swedish citizen can go to any public hospital and get help. Regardless of insurances or healthplans<span id='postcolor'>

Uhh.. wrong. it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient in the USA.  We can visit any hospitals we like in an emergency.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, I think that is where we fundamentally part ways, in our differing philosophies. I believe in Mill's secular philosophy of Utilitarianism, and to some exten Kant's philosophies as well. I think there are certain universal rights, some of which appear in the Declaration of Independence, but not all of which do. At the bottom I believe in doing what is best for the greatest amount of people, and that means fighting to support what as I see as their fundamental and universal rights, like the right to remain alive, to not be tortured or oppressed, and to select their form of government whether it be democracy, socialism or monarchy. I do not support dictatorships, theocracies or corrupt monarchies, totalitarian democracies, or any corrupt regime for that matter. Locke said that a social contract exists between government and mankind and when either side fails to hold up its end of the bargain, the government is dissolved and a new one is formed, either by force or by peaceful internal means if they exist.

<span id='postcolor'>

I consider myself being a utilitarian and support the concept of trying to maximize the happiness in the world. Utilitarianism does however not answer all questions. It does not say if long term or short term "happiness" is to be promoted. It does not say how this "happiness" should be distributed either.

I do not agree with Kant's teachings - I'm very opposed to them actually because 1) they are based on flawed assumptions and 2) they are to trivial to represent the complex world we live in.

[Longinius 1]

"At the bottom I believe in doing what is best for the greatest amount of people, and that means fighting to support what as I see as their fundamental and universal rights, like the right to remain alive, to not be tortured or oppressed, and to select their form of government whether it be democracy, socialism or monarchy. I do not support dictatorships, theocracies or corrupt monarchies, totalitarian democracies, or any corrupt regime for that matter. "

If you believe in these things, can you still stay loyal to your current government? I mean in regards to universal rights to life since the US has capital punishment, and in regards to corrupt regimes... Well, most western democracies have corrupt politicians but since the entire American political system is built around money, lobbyists and interests groups I assume there is a bit more corruption there than in maybe Denmark or Finland for example.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 10 2003,22:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1 - tax rate %

I'm pretty sure everyone is still paying for public healthcare whether you choose public or not. Thats exactly what I'm talking about.<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO. So you think we have fewer liberties because we pay a couple of percent more in taxes! That's beautiful.

When can we count to be liberated from our oppressive governemnet? I'm waiting for the tanks! Finally we will get rid of cheap healthcare, equal opportunity for education for all and we'll stop paying for those damn sick and weak. I feel that the liberation is near!

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 10 2003,22:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1 - tax rate %

I'm pretty sure everyone is still paying for public healthcare whether you choose public or not. Thats exactly what I'm talking about.<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO. So you think we have fewer liberties because we pay a couple of percent more in taxes! That's beautiful.

When can we count to be liberated from our oppressive governemnet? I'm waiting for the tanks! Finally we will get rid of cheap healthcare, equal opportunity for education for all and we'll stop paying for those damn sick and weak. I feel that the liberation is near!    <span id='postcolor'>

hehe.. borrowed time.. borrowed time...

dropping birth rates... shrinking workers pool... climbing costs... aging population...

getting the trend?

*sigh* no matter.. these things work themselves out...

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,215)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">right to getting a new car for free each week, not having to work and the pursuit of nakedness.<span id='postcolor'>

No one can stop you from doing any of those You dont have to go to work, but you wont have the money to buy a car each week and you wont have a house to stay naked in.

[Longinius 1]

"The government doesn't make all my critical economic choices and forces me to fund its choice and its choice for everyone else."

And in what way does my government make my critical economic choices?

"I'm pretty sure everyone is still paying for public healthcare whether you choose public or not. Thats exactly what I'm talking about."

Yeah, and that is bad in what way? Since it gives you the right to get medical attention anywhere and everywhere in the country I dont see the problem.

"Uhh.. wrong. it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient in the USA. We can visit any hospitals we like in an emergency."

And I am sure they can slap you with a hefty bill?

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 10 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"At the bottom I believe in doing what is best for the greatest amount of people, and that means fighting to support what as I see as their fundamental and universal rights, like the right to remain alive, to not be tortured or oppressed, and to select their form of government whether it be democracy, socialism or monarchy. I do not support dictatorships, theocracies or corrupt monarchies, totalitarian democracies, or any corrupt regime for that matter. "

If you believe in these things, can you still stay loyal to your current government? I mean in regards to universal rights to life since the US has capital punishment, and in regards to corrupt regimes... Well, most western democracies have corrupt politicians but since the entire American political system is built around money, lobbyists and interests groups I assume there is a bit more corruption there than in maybe Denmark or Finland for example.<span id='postcolor'>

Good point, yes at this time in history I can remain loyal to my current government because the apparatus exists to effect change peacefully from within. Should that go away, and one can make the argument that with the way money is playing a role in American politics is having just that effect on the system, then i think the government should be dissolved and a new one formed.

Ah, I think I hear John Ashcroft knocking on my door.

Denoir, the only part of Kant's metaphysics i agree with is the idea of a universal truth or good. I think some things are just wrong, no matter where you live and who you are. Murder for example is wrong throughout the entire human condition.

Mill, I think leaned toward long-term goods.

[foxer 0]

And I am sure they can slap you with a hefty bill?

Most likely, yes.However,Most of the time people don't pay it.Can the hospital do anything about it ? Nope.Even if they come in next week.They still have to treat the person.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,22:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, the only part of Kant's metaphysics i agree with is the idea of a universal truth or good.<span id='postcolor'>

That's the part I disagree most with since it presumes the existance of a god

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I think some things are just wrong, no matter where you live and who you are. Murder for example is wrong throughout the entire human condition.

<span id='postcolor'>

So, trying to whack Saddam was wrong?

[Pukko 0]

Many good posts around here at usual, but I do not take the time and energy to follow it in detail at present however.

I would just like to congratulate all Americans who supported a war for the great success that showed up yesterday! Almost no matter what happens from now on, the symbolic value of the happenings of April 9 2003 will be refered to as justification for this war and, in part, the coming ones. Now that TBA have got this HUGE momentum up there is no question that more wars will come (and Bush probably gets another period). Congratulations for being part of such a successful nation, and that you are proved right that war was one solution to Iraq - because any problems after this point will be an aftermath to a successful war.

Congratulations to all Iraqis for having a potential better future!

And I am sorry for everyone who are sceptical about TBA wars on terrorism and evil nations - the rethorics in discussions with a 'knight in shiny armour, with good self-confidece'  are not easy to deal with; one are bound to loose I'm afraid. There is nothing stopping TBA from doing what ever it wants now.....

The UN and opposing nations are eliminated from hindering future wars, preemptive attacks are justified. And I'm quite sure everything will look good in the closest years - but then the setback comes   I am not confident that TBA are able to think any further than their noses reach.

Therefore, in a preemtive attack, I say: Thank you Bush administration for ruining much of what could be good in the world during the closest decades.

btw, I saw you mentioned neocolonialism some pages back, as far as I have understood its about a form of colonisation that do not work through traditional occupation, but rather through more abstract, but strong, influence (not only economical).

And about the political discussion on this page - remember that we live in a postindustrial world, and its very hard to predict which system will prove to be the best in a radically changing society. I am however quite sure that Europe will make it better in the closest decades (or at least the next-closest decades) than the USA - if USA does not manage to implement (force the world into) a real strong pax americana order that is.

[foxer 0]

NM ,going stay outta this.........

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 10 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">dropping birth rates... shrinking workers pool... climbing costs... aging population...

getting the trend?<span id='postcolor'>

No not really. It's been working for almost 100 years now and our economy is in much better shape then the US one.

Not that our is doing so exceptionally well, but more that your is doing exceptionally bad. I'm sure that Bush will solve the 300 billion dollar budget deficiency by a series of tax cuts.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,23:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure that Bush will solve the 300 billion dollar budget deficiency by a series of tax cuts.<span id='postcolor'>

Reaganomics 101

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 10 2003,23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,23:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure that Bush will solve the 300 billion dollar budget deficiency by a series of tax cuts.<span id='postcolor'>

Reaganomics 101<span id='postcolor'>

Voodoo Economics.

Beuhler....Beuhler....Beuhler....

I want to know what Shrub is going to do to distract people in the US once Iraq is properly subdued. Once it's ok to speak out again, I am sure a lot of pundits will be pointing out that the economy is in the crapper.

[FallenPaladin 0]

If you have problems in your country find trouble in foreign countries. Even Caesar followed that strategy when he fought in Gallia and wrote his "De bello gallico".

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ April 10 2003,23:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"De bello gallico"<span id='postcolor'>

Which by the way is one of the most horrible reads if you start thinking of the consequences of all the little sidenotes - like him sending out his thugs to burn the fields and catch the cattle, or the sheer number of people he and his legions masacred throughout the campaign, often enough including woman and children... Quite a disturbing read, and very sobering if you previously had any high thoughts about Rome and his minions.