Asia 'outraged' At Howard's Terror Call

[Lefty Scaevola]

When push come to shove, the sovereingty will raely be overtly violated. rather the stronger nation will use matter and powers, most commonly economic, within its legal discretion to persude or compel the appropriate permission.

[Sandman]

So Sandman what would you have the Australians do? Sit by and watch the Indonesians play lip service to fighting terror while Australian citizens continue to die?

False dilemma. The best way to avoid such calamities is to stop going on holiday to unstable countries.

Several months have passed since Bali yet the Indonesian government hasn't taken any meaningful action against Islamic terrorists.

The bombings took place on the 12th of October, less than two months ago. Your attempt to portray the Indonesians as laggards is unfounded. They've arrested the suspected leader, and are cooperating with over 100 Australian police officers.

The question now is do we let Indonesia remain a base for Islamic terrorists to attack us from or do we force them to take action?

If arresting terrorist suspects isn't enough for you, what is? How many hoops are the Indonesians expected to jump through?

Howard's speech is a perfect example of the old carrot & stick method of diplomacy. He's saying that if the Indonesians don't start fulfilling their responsabilities then they might get the stick; and if this motivates the Indonesians into doing something positive then I say good for Howard.

Might get the stick; perhaps this is a euphamism for bombing Jakarta. If so, it's not the terrorists that will be attacked, it's the Indonesian government and people. Threatening a country with over 200 million people is sure to boost the terrorists cause.

Mercifully, the article does not, like you, suggest that Indonesia should be attacked for being too slow, it suggests attacking terrorist targets which happen to be in Indonesia.

[Ned]

IIRC, the Indonesian government was repeatedly warned that al Qaida was operating in Indonesian and that local Islamic groups were cooperating. They were also warned that these groups planned attacks against Western targets Indonesia.

These warning were met with denials, not action. I beleive that the head of one of these local Islamic groups was politically influencial and attacking it could have eroded support for the government. In other words, local politics prevented action - at least until a terror act took place.

Now, if the above is correct, what would Howard propose to have done prior to Bali under a proposed new " pre-emption" doctrine? I suggest that any unilateral action may have made the political situation in Indonesia worse.

I suggest, though, that if there has been terrorist aggression launched by terrorists based in one country against another, the country attacked has a right of self defense. If the harboring country refuses to cooperate, it becomes an enemy as well.

This principle is very old in international law. It developed in connection with piracy and its suppression. The UN Charter does not have to be amended.

[Saint Marcus]

When push come to shove, the sovereingty will raely be overtly violated.

Russia does it in Georgia.

[Sandman]

Every country gets terror alerts. There's one every month in America. Just a few weeks ago there was a 'warning' of a gas attack on the London Underground. They seldom come to anything. Can you blame the Indonesians for being indifferent?

[DinoDoc]

"Sovereignty is not decided by fight, it's decided by right."

History and reality seems to disagree with the Philippine National Security Adviser.

I don't think that the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force carries much legal weight anyway.

[Saint Marcus]

History and reality seems to disagree with the Philippine National Security Adviser.

History and reality show a lot of things. That doesn't mean it's all right.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
History and reality show a lot of things. That doesn't mean it's all right.

This is a joke, right?
Historically, if something always works out a certain way, it's a good guess that it's more "right" than the fantasy someone spews out which isn'tbased in reality.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You surely know that it is against International Law to force a regime change in another country, right?

I assume this would apply to Taiwan and Tibet also?

Let's first come up with a working definition of "regime" and "country"

Just because some murdering ******* shoots his way into power and keeps it by force, over some chunk of real estate, doesn't mean he's suddenly entitled to "rights."

[Saint Marcus]

This is a joke, right?
Historically, if something always works out a certain way, it's a good guess that it's more "right" than the fantasy someone spews out which isn'tbased in reality.

another realpolitiking utilist

until the 18/9th century, slavery has been a common practice and it worked. if all people thought the same way as you, it would never have been abolished.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Sandman
Every country gets terror alerts. There's one every month in America. Just a few weeks ago there was a 'warning' of a gas attack on the London Underground. They seldom come to anything. Can you blame the Indonesians for being indifferent?

Yes, we can. And do

Before the Bali attack, Indonesia either denied, refuted, or just plain ignored anything told them by Australia. Being ultimately right gives no satisfaction when hundreds of innocent people die in proving it

[Asher]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
another realpolitiking utilist

until the 18/9th century, slavery has been a common practice and it worked. if all people thought the same way as you, it would never have been abolished.

Not true, slavery certainly did not work because it trampled on human rights.

I'm not saying what's common practice is right, but we can learn from previous mistakes and correct them.

Like World War II appeasement...sitting and twiddling your thumbs only works for so long. It's the easy way out, and history has shown it's a crap plan.

[Saint Marcus]

Not true, slavery certainly did not work because it trampled on human rights.

human rights? if you can claim that than I can claim that sovereignity is a nation's right that others can't trample on.

Also, it's different what you said.

You said: Historically, if something always works out a certain way, it's a good guess that it's more "right" than the fantasy someone spews out which isn'tbased in reality.

one can make the same claim about slavery. It has always worked a certain way, and therefor it's a good guess that it's more "right" than the fantasy someone (for instance, and abolitionist) spews out which isn't based in reality.

Stop fezzing, and take a stand. You clearly said that things that have always worked a certain way are more right than fantasies. If that is so it applies to slavery, the American independence and rights of nations alike. You can either back up that claim, or you can admit you're wrong. Don't start twisting your own words. I know you're a better debater than that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
History and reality show a lot of things. That doesn't mean it's all right.

I like utopian visions as much as the next person but some of us prefer to deal with the real world.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
human rights? if you can claim that than I can claim that sovereignity is a nation's right that others can't trample on.

I don't think that a nation has an absolute right to sovereignty. If a country began ethnic cleansing, do you still think you can watch from the sidelines and shrug and say "It's their sovereign country, none of my concern?"

You said: Historically, if something always works out a certain way, it's a good guess that it's more "right" than the fantasy someone spews out which isn'tbased in reality.

one can make the same claim about slavery. It has always worked a certain way, and therefor it's a good guess that it's more "right" than the fantasy someone (for instance, and abolitionist) spews out which isn't based in reality.

Slavery has certainly not always worked.
You're taking my position to be the absolute status quo, and it's not. You're misinterpreting what I said intentionally or unintentionally, repeatedly.

My comment is made in the scope of foreign relations. We've learned in the past that if we don't do anything, things can happen. Look at Rwanda, look at World War 2, etc.

Slavery is a different beast. It's just not RIGHT. You can claim that it's not right to "invade a country's sovereignty", but as far as I'm concerned, if that country's sovereignty tramples on human rights and supports terrorism they lost that right.

International sovereignty is a privledge, not a right, in the global community.

Stop fezzing, and take a stand. You clearly said that things that have always worked a certain way are more right than fantasies. If that is so it applies to slavery, the American independence and rights of nations alike. You can either back up that claim, or you can admit you're wrong. Don't start twisting your own words. I know you're a better debater than that.

You're the one twisting my words... I'm talking about foreign relations and you start going on and on about slavery.

What I meant by, and perhaps wasn't clear enough, was that we can learn from our past mistakes in foreign relations. So you can knock it off by flogging the dead horse by taking my comment and generalizing it to everything under the sun in a desperate last ditch attempt to avoid discussing the real issue...