Yet more Arab Hypocracy.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
Drogue, in the abstract I agree with your point. But even the UN recognizes the right of self defense of nations. It does not require them to first get UN approval which the logic of your post would seemingly require.

Very true, although you would have to show that it was self-defense. Ie. that Iraq posed an "immediate, credible threat" (British terminology for self-defense) to US national security. This would be a hard task, and has come under considerable scrutiny in this country with regards to Blair's 'sexed-up' dossier, and the 45 minutes promise. My point was more wide than just Iraq/Al Queida though, and related to the USA's general opinion (so it seems) that it is the international policeman, judge, jury and executioner.

[Whaleboy]

Do your really believe that we need UN approval to pursue OBL?

Legally and politically, no. Morally, logically and philosophically? Of course. I deal with morals and logic. Not bull**** lawyers.

Drogue:

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps I'm not being fair. There is one argument for war on Iraq on war on Terror that I cannot refute. Economics. Assuming their new-found influence will be used profitably, they will take the enormously loss making venture of war into a goldmine. Why don't they sell the wars in its only justifiable way? Because it is outweighed by the moral argument against.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
Do your really believe that we need UN approval to pursue OBL?

Depends on the methods you use. If you were to persue, arrest and try him like any criminal, then no. If you were to invaden a country to get to him, then yes, IMHO, you do. But this isn't about UN approval to me, this is about the wish for revenge, rather than justice. The desire to "kick some ass" rather than find and legitimatly try the perpetrators. Such as the people in Guantanamo bay, who should be tried for their crimes, and either jailed or set free, depending on the outcome. I want to see the same rules applied for this as would be if it had happened in a different nation, or if it had been a different type of mass murder.

[Whaleboy]

I concur, it is all to easy to hide behind issues of legality in order to, literally, get away with murder. However, where there is a conflict between morals and the law, in terms of a nation in this case, it is perhaps indicative of their intent, looking at Guantanamo bay in particular, where it is legal... just about. My argument against that hellhole stands.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
"This glorious flag is under attack, we must unite under it to defend its honour, I am the conduit that will enable that" - Whaleboy paraphrasing Hitler.

It was nothing but a more extreme version of Bush admiration. Hitler could have died and been replaced by someone like Goering, and the difference in public furvour would have been minimal. It was of course Hitler and Goebbles that manipulated the simplistic idiocy of the masses to bring to fruition mass patriotism, dangerous enough in small amounts as you show so eloquently. Nonetheless, racism is a relative of nationalism, white supremacy/USA supremacy. I dont see a difference.

All I can say here,Whaleboy, is that you simply do not understand United States. You are projecting your own animus onto a leftist caricature of the United States and George Bush and then concluding that United States and Nazi Germany are similar.

You are intelluctually dishonest.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Perhaps I'm not being fair. There is one argument for war on Iraq on war on Terror that I cannot refute. Economics. Assuming their new-found influence will be used profitably, they will take the enormously loss making venture of war into a goldmine. Why don't they sell the wars in its only justifiable way? Because it is outweighed by the moral argument against.

Actually the other way. It's why I never bought the oil argument anti-war people brought up. The US and UK will lose money on the war. A lot of money. That's a big reason I was against it, that I don't want to see schools and hospitals funding lapsing to afford a war. Wars used to be done for those reasons (England and France in India for example). The reason's they aren't now is twofold:
1) Warfare costs a lot more now, and very rarely could money be gained.
2) International consequences. There are usually sanctions for invading other nations, or even counter-operation by the international community (like when Iraq invaded Kuwait). This makes the consequences of war less preferable.
If that weren't the case, there would be more wars. It's not to do with morals, because people running democratic nations see the consequences, and try to pick the best for them and their voters. That is why the US defying the UN is bad, because it removes some of the consequences, and makes it a lot easier for larger nations to invade other nations for profit, should they wish.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drogue

Very true, although you would have to show that it was self-defense. Ie. that Iraq posed an "immediate, credible threat" (British terminology for self-defense) to US national security. This would be a hard task, and has come under considerable scrutiny in this country with regards to Blair's 'sexed-up' dossier, and the 45 minutes promise. My point was more wide than just Iraq/Al Queida though, and related to the USA's general opinion (so it seems) that it is the international policeman, judge, jury and executioner.

The British requirement for self-defense may be different from what Bush argued to America. Bush argued that we should not wait until the threat from Saddam Hussein became imminent. He said that when the weapons of mass instruction are involved that we could not wait until an attack occurred.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
All I can say here,Whaleboy, is that you simply do not understand United States. You are projecting your own animus onto a leftist caricature of the United States and George Bush and then concluding that United States and Nazi Germany are similar.

Blind patriotism can lead in many directions. I hope the USA isn't becoming like Nazi Germany, and I doubt it is. Sure blind patriotism is bad, but it doesn't make the US a Nazi state. Besides, replacing "the Jews" with "Al Queida" in a Nazi speech may be correct, but the Jews had done nothing to provoke, and Al Queida has. At the least, waking an angry sleeping giant is an extremely stupid thing to do.

Originally posted by Ned
You are intelluctually dishonest.

I wouldn't go that far, that implies that he knows he is wrong. I think, with regards to the Nazi correllation, he is, but I don't think he does. If he believes what he says, he is not dishonest, he is misinformed.

[Ned]

Droque, OK, I will give Whaleboy the benefit of doubt.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
The British requirement for self-defense may be different from what Bush argued to America. Bush argued that we should not wait until the threat from Saddam Hussein became imminent. He said that when the weapons of mass instruction are involved that we could not wait until an attack occurred.

I would take a line in the middle, not waiting for attacks to occur, but for an imminent threat to be apparent. Even now they have not shown an imminent threat, and so we have convicted a nation of something we have no evidence for, even after searching, convictions and punishment.

More importantly, we've cost the taxpayer billions in legal costs.

[Whaleboy]

Conceded, it seems the economic consequences are worse than I thought. Yet we live in a world run by oilmen.

All I can say here,Whaleboy, is that you simply do not understand United States.

Oh I do understand the United States. Understanding does not preclude disagreement. Indeed, in my case, it helps it! . Open mind for a different view, empty mind for blind acceptance.

You are projecting your own animus onto a leftist caricature of the United States and George Bush and then concluding that United States and Nazi Germany are similar.

Not the United States, any nation. I understand human nature, that is all, I dislike it. Nazi Germany and Bush's America are contemporarily symptomatic of the very human problem of patriotism. It is exploited by leaders to make us easier to lead. You are blind if you cannot see it, but to comprehend it takes something else that most people lack . Education is the cure, but I dont see it happening for a while. It sucks nonetheless.

You are intelluctually dishonest.

You are using ad hominems, which I have always regarded as a sign of inferior reasoning. I must ask you to cease that childish behaviour.

[Ned]

Droque, just one more small point. We do not have "blind patriotism" here in the the US with such a vigorous two party system. Everything gets "debated," even strategy on the war on terror.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, you are right about the ad hominem. I withdraw it.

[Whaleboy]

I wouldn't go that far, that implies that he knows he is wrong. I think, with regards to the Nazi correllation, he is, but I don't think he does. If he believes what he says, he is not dishonest, he is misinformed.

I am drawing a comparison between the methods of societies that use fanatical patriotism. In this, and only this, my analogy holds. I am not trying to say that the USA will use a holocaust (though Gtmo bay looks like a concentration camp to me ).

Droque, OK, I will give Whaleboy the benefit of doubt.

*group hug*