more cracks from europe.

[Whaleboy]

Just so that you know, Whaleboy thinks there is no ethical difference between helping old ladies cross the road, and eating babies. It all depends on "different postulates, and points of view".

God, I hate postmodernist bull****.

Strawman. I think there is no moral difference, assuming the perp isn't a sociopath. There is a clear ethical difference that we can all see. Imposition like that is unacceptable in society.

And there have been there how long exactly?

Enough time to make a difference...

So, you're willing to sacrifice the fait of the Iraqi people in order to prevent some unseen danger? You sound like Rummy.

If I thought the UN would do an inferior job, I would not suggest it is allowed to run Iraq. I believe it will do a superior job, so your point is defunct.

Why's that.

You are a consequentialist are you not?

I didn't know that the brits were close to the ME mentality.

Well there you go! There's a little bit of Gaza inside every Northerner...

Anyway, can I accept this humorous reply as an admission to a conceded point?

Nope. A British-led UN task force is not a unilateral American force.

"Coolitions of the Willing" are inherently shaky- If Iraq is so damned important, why leave it in the hands of a transiatory grouping of states and not make it a global task?

[Az]

Oh, and Spiff. , almost as always, btw.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
The problem with "coalitions of the willing" isn't that they're "transiatory", but that they have interests. The same problem will exist with a "global taskforce". It won't be truly global, but more like "dividing the pie"

Two proiblems with this view I see:

1. "they have interests"? Everyone has interests. The point is that any grouping based solely on present political expediency,as the coalition that went into Iraq was, it is just waiting for collapse once members decide it is no longer politically expedient for them to stay in it.

2. As for it being not trully global-what is "trully global"? According to the US the Solomon Islands are part of this darned coalition-what the hell are they doing? Dividing the pie is exactly what needs to happen here, the pie of responsibilities.

[Q Classic]

We did not give democracy to South Korea. We gave them th Rhee dictatoship which slaughtered over 100,000 Koreans. The RoK only became a democracy in the 1990s.

well, the bulk of those killed by rhee were seditionists and communists, for what that's worth.

The same with most of our East Asian clients: Taiwan, Indonesia.

when did indonesia turn into a real democracy?

The Philippeans became a democracy inspite of our support of their dicator, Marcos. We only stopped backing him when it became obvious in the last six hours of his raeign he couldn't maintain control.

didn't you love it when they found that imelda had thousands and thousands of pairs of shoes?

Only in Japan did we delver on democracy.

after a long occupation and pretty much a forced: you do things this way or we'll be here longer.

Our record in Asia is very poor. If Vietnam became a democracy, it would be inspite of us, not because of us.

apparently, early on, ho chi minh thought the us would join the war against france on vietnam's side, seeing as they were both former colonies.

actually no, I've read articles recently where they'd also like some freedoms back. they fought briliantly to defeat a large imperialist power, and now they are licking the **** stick along w/ north korea.

well, technically, you have to have eaten something to be licking a **** stick. i don't know if any nkorean has enough to actually ****.






in any case, when are the next polish elections? hopefully, their commitment won't waver further; are they a strong coalition gov't?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

well, technically, you have to have eaten something to be licking a **** stick. i don't know if any nkorean has enough to actually ****.

sad but true=[


=[

[Pekka]

Well, the point is that Poland was promised WMDs. They were told by US there are WMDs. The US had other reasons and like it's been said that it was just one of the reasons, but for international community that might have been the strongest point joining the effort. I'm not talking about what I think, I'm talking about what they most likely think.

To call them traitors and weak is STUPID. That's how you turn your friends against you. It's only logical. WMDs -> let's roll. No WMDs? Let's get out.

Though I argue that it's stupid to get out now since the war is over and the country is in struggle of making it, so it would be the wrong time to turn your back now. And also when you're this far, you should stick with your allie to the bitter end.

[Az]

Two proiblems with this view I see:

1. "they have interests"? Everyone has interests. The point is that any grouping based solely on present political expediency,as the coalition that went into Iraq was, it is just waiting for collapse once members decide it is no longer politically expedient for them to stay in it.

But just as you said. The bulk of the weight lies on the US.

2. As for it being not trully global-what is "trully global"? According to the US the Solomon Islands are part of this darned coalition-what the hell are they doing? Dividing the pie is exactly what needs to happen here, the pie of responsibilities.

Truly global is something that is striving for the interests of all of humanity. A mission for the UN is a mission of people who are members of different countries, and are often former bureaucrats in the national governments. Thus they too will have interests that may not be beneficial to the world, but are beneficial for their countries.

And as long as no such global layer of people that have the power, the knowledge and the will to do so exist, the world's policeman will be either a bunch of pushy neighbours that just want their will, or the neighbourhood's bully. Such a global bureacracy doesn't exist yet, of course. It won't exist, as long as the UN doesn't collect taxes.

[Japher]

The US was taken for a ride too, along with the British and the rest of the coalition that was fueled by Iraq foreign nationals and deserters... Thus, it's the Iraq's fault afterall... But let's just blame Bush, it's so much easier, and a lot more fun!

[Az]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Strawman. I think there is no moral difference, assuming the perp isn't a sociopath. There is a clear ethical difference that we can all see. Imposition like that is unacceptable in society.

then why are different "cultural" or "religious" impositions acceptable?

Enough time to make a difference...

not true.

If I thought the UN would do an inferior job, I would not suggest it is allowed to run Iraq. I believe it will do a superior job, so your point is defunct.

Ok, point taken, though you still haven't shown me why would I think that the UN will do a superior job.

You are a consequentialist are you not?

Yes, so what ? What are the consequences I must fear so much? That Iraq will become more peaceful? Oh noes.

[Pekka]

Japher, of course. Project Manager takes the responsibility. Don't forget, Poland was told it was sure there are WMDs. Remember, I like the US most of other countries and I support the action. Why would I say this?

[Pekka]

And then again, I think Poland should stay just because it's military alliance and I believe if you're allied, you go to the bitter end. That's why I don't like alliances, because they're BS and everyone brakes their word. Better not to allie with no one. Except if you're ready to go the full 9 yards.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Japher
The US was taken for a ride too, along with the British and the rest of the coalition that was fueled by Iraq foreign nationals and deserters... Thus, it's the Iraq's fault afterall... But let's just blame Bush, it's so much easier, and a lot more fun!

Obviously, the Bushies trusted them blindly, and they were perfectly right in engaging a war on those people that just had to be extremely trustworthy.

I just have found how to dispose of my old enemy the Tuvalu

[DinoDoc]

For the love of God people! Even France thought they had weapons.

[Spiffor]

As for Krasnievski excuse for the withdrawal, I wouldn't consider Poland to be honest in this regard. Poland used to have an egotist as Prime Minister, who rejected Chirac's will to power over Europe, and who wanted to make sure Poland is on the American side. There was disagreement about it within the government (IIUC, Krasniewski was very unhappy about it), but the Prime Minister's proposal to go along with the US won in the end, because Poland definitely was scared of ending up on a side where Russia was starring.

This decision brought Poland under the spotlights of international geopolitics. Just the same as Spain, this relatively minor country enjoyed an immense prestige compared to what it was accustomed to. This emboldened the Spaniards and the Poles to reject the European constitution, that would reduce their weights in the EU.

Now, said Prime Minister is gone after the European Constitution failure, and Krasniewski is stuck with the ****-stick. He has understood how much rampage the Iraqi war has done to the PP in Spain, and he most likely doesn't want his own reign to end up like that.

It is power politics like usual. The lack of WMDs is a problem only in that the coalition's governments can't justify their war to the public opinion.

[Pekka]

DD, true, but that's not the point. The point is, US took the lead. Either a) you need to choose better allies next time or b) accept that not everyone is willing to go all the way. Poland is not very rich country, US spends lots of money in Iraq, for the good of Iraqi people now. Poland can't afford to do much. Now that the highest priority is out of the picture, they can just pack up their stuff and leave. It sucks, but then again they have the right to leave. Maybe that's bad alliance and not cool, but they can decide for themselves.