Asia 'outraged' At Howard's Terror Call

[MichaeltheGreat]

at GePap.

The issue with "sovereignty" starts with what exactly, is it? In the case of the US, we can defend it. In the case of, say, Iraq, where a dictator murdered his way into power over an arbitrary geographic region created for the convenience of a British colonial administration, it's a bit more touchy.

Gee, we have a choice between "anti-American riots" (like those are particularly new or interesting), or tolerating terrorists actively planning attacks on us being harbored in some dysfunctional third-world dungheap with no control over it's own supposed "sovereign" territory.

Can't do anything to violate their "sovereignty" or they'll get mad at us. Boo-hoo-hooey-hoo.

Let me put it this way - any of these ****hole so-called countries where unilateral action might be needed are too economically and politically insignificant for the rest of the world to really give a damn about. Think about it, if they can't maintain their own territorial integrity and have functional police and military forces, then what possible impact do they have in global economic or geopolitics?

[GePap]

Well MtG: if our country is too: indolent, stupid, slow, lazy, ignorant, slowwitted, vainglorious and hypocritical to be able to stop terrorist from attacking it on its own, what right do we have to harp on what other do, huh?

Also, if a bucnh of 20-40 guys could successfully plan to kill thousand of americans and succeed, yeah, it must be impossible for any state out there to do so as well.... since we are so powerful as to eb able to stop those 20-40 guys.....

Why on earth was what Osama Bin Lande did is wrong?He has a political disagreement with us, he see us as terrorist agents, so he decided to strike back at the terrorist? If rights do not matter, only might (individual rights are just as inherent as soverignty, ie. they have to inherent qualities) then we should give him kuods for being able to so effectively bypass where we are strong and hit us were we were weak.

Might comes and goes, and even the mightiest can't stop everything. If you decide on apolicy of might, screw rights, then you must be wiling to acept the consequences of such actions. Osama bin Laden is a consequence of a previous policy of might over right. And I am sure MtG, that you would not have any problems with your children and grandchildren having to deal with the consequences of your "might over right' policy in the future; if they survive the consequences, that is.

[Drake Tungsten]

You don't get to chose law, or chose rights. Devalue one, and all of them go.

Are you retarded? People and governments choose which laws to follow and which rights to protect all the time. That's what the political process is all about. You can devalue one law or right and keep the rest of them intact. It happens on a regular basis.

[GePap]

There is a vast difference between doing something an it being right. And no you can't. Once you have created the precedent, anything is possible. The current governments may not whish to infinrge on a certain right, but that does not mean they won't in the future (are you Nostradamus?)

Whats trikes me most odd about the oposite position is that you have the insane notion (in my mind at least) that somehow: 1. you are strong enough to ignore the consequences of your actions 2. Some 'rights' are more real than others 3. You have the ability to deny others rights you claim for yourself.

Number 3 is the most obvious problem: Terrorism is a political act. When you have someone like Howards speak, he is saying: "We retain the right to, anywhere and anytime, strike with violence, at the those who's political activities endanger our values, interests, or well-being; BUT they (the enemy) does not have the same right to atrike with violence at us for our polices that might endanger their rights, interests, well being since they lack the convenbtional military capability to be choosy about who they kill." In essence, we (the West) are trying to make a capabilities-oriented morality (political violnce is fine as long as you can afford guided weaponry) whiel expectng evryone else to go along with it, to their won detriment. Well, it won't work, and will unforseen but dangerous consequences (just as Osama and Al Qaeda are the unforseen consequences of anti-communist policies of the 1980's)

[Sprayber]

"In a weekend interview on Channel Nine, Mr Howard said that "of course" he would intervene in a neighbouring country if terrorists there were planning to attack Australia and there was no alternative to prevent them. International law was inadequate to deal with modern national security threats and the UN charter should be amended to support pre-emption, he said."

GePap: Now you tell me that you would not be enraged if your goverment leaders knew of attacks being planned and assembled in a neighboring country and did nothing about it simply because that country refused or was unable to do anything about it while your country had the means and ability to stop it. Are you telling me you would simply say "oh well its a shame?"

[Drake Tungsten]

Whats trikes me most odd about the oposite position is that you have the insane notion (in my mind at least) that somehow: 1. you are strong enough to ignore the consequences of your actions 2. Some 'rights' are more real than others 3. You have the ability to deny others rights you claim for yourself.

No, I have the rather sane notion that rights are not static and can change greatly depending upon the circumstances under which you try to apply them. For example, I would normally consider killing another human being to be morally wrong, but if I was fighting in a war I would have no problem killing my enemy. It's all shades of grey.

Morality is not absolute, therefore rights and laws are also not absolute.

And no you can't. Once you have created the precedent, anything is possible. The current governments may not whish to infinrge on a certain right, but that does not mean they won't in the future (are you Nostradamus?)

Bull****. They are several parts of the US Constitution that have been infringed upon, but it hasn't made the whole Constitution irrelevant. Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sprayber
GePap: Now you tell me that you would not be enraged if your goverment leaders knew of attacks being planned and assembled in a neighboring country and did nothing about it simply because that country refused or was unable to do anything about it while your country had the means and ability to stop it. Are you telling me you would simply say "oh well its a shame?"

Several answers: If you know the specifics of an attack, there are many ways to deal with it that don't involve violations of sovereingty (as simple as telling your citizens to leave that state) or seeking to arrest said individuals once they come unto your state to carry an attack. Unless the 'terrorist' have their hands on long-rane missiles there are many non-intereventionist military options to take. If you have specifics you couls also claim the right to strike based ont he clauses of international law that allow for pre-meptive action on an imminent threat.
If you have no specifics, then it is a very different deal. After all, if the threat is not immidiate (and a possible plot is not immidiate) then the other state woul have the right to shoot at any individuals that cross into its borders ilegaly, and any such force would be doing so. The way you deal with a nebulous threat is by helping the othe rstate gain the ability to strike, or taking the precautions necessary, like ending relations with said state and currtailing the ability of your citizens to go there.

There is a reason why Howard took this statement back, folks.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Moreover to add to what Drake says, the Constitution was itslef a lving document meant to be modified through amendment. Founding fathers understood that law was meant to be changed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Study a little modern mid-east history, first. Islamic fundamentalism has been on the rise with arab nationalism since the 1940's, with the first real coherent written philosophy of the fundamentalist movement and it's goals written by Sayyid al Qutb in the early 1950's.

The Ayatollah Khomeini was exiled in 1964 for his fundie activities, al Qutb and others were exiled or outlawed, and it's a joke to claim that US aid to Mujaheddin in Afghanistan created the modern Islamic movements - they have been growing for years before hand, arms are cheap all over the mid-east, but the real issue has been one of timing.

The Iranian fundamentalist movement was very successful when built around a charismatic leader (Khomeini) and a large population base - students and the conservative rural poor in Iran. Had Khomeini died before 1979, the movement probably never would have gotten anywhere. Relatively few Iranians with secular education and skills have embraced the fundamentalist movement, and most of those are in the Iranian military and intelligence services, which have been extremely effective in aiding and organizing terrorist groups.

Al Qutb died in 1970, with no easy means of communicating his message, and with his writings more or less effectively suppressed by arab governments. He had not yet gotten the audience of secularly educated moslems which is essential to operating any large scale enterprise, be it a government, a global terrorist organization, or anything else.

Afghanistan was helpful to al Qaeda, but what has been far more helpful is the spread of communications technology and electronic transfers of funds. Fundamentalist Islamic clerics on their own can't do much, nor can a bunch of rag-tag peasant followers operate outside their own territory. It was people like OBL who brought secular training and talents (and contacts) to the fundamentalist movement, and OBL would have found his niche anywhere. He didn't need Afghanistan - Somalia or Algeria or another arab state would have served - Chechnya would have happened once the USSR collapsed, regardless of Afghanistan.

As for your three notions, they're quite simple:

1: One can safely ignore the consequences of actions which are inconsequential. A hellfire missile in the Yemeni desert isn't going to have any long term effect.

2: No "rights" are "real." The entire concept of "rights" is an arbitrary human creation. If you think you have any natural or real rights, hop into a cage with a very hungry tiger, and discuss the concept with him and see how far it gets you. We have precisely whatever "rights" others decide to grant us, or conversely, can't be arsed to do anything about.

3: Bull****. You're distorting Howard's statement to fit your agenda, and playing this lefty mental game of decoupling cause and effect - "who started it" is irrelevent in the imaginary leftist world, where self-defense, or reaction, are indistiguishable from first strike attack. Howard said nothing about "political activity" - he framed his remarks in terms of those planning or engaging in carrying out attacks.

The killing of specific armed attackers and their operational support is distinct from the "political activity" of killing random civilians en masse. It is not a question of terrorists being unable to directly target "enemy" military installations, it is anathema to their intent, which is to create terror and economic and political disruption by unpredictable attacks on non-combatants.

Howard's remarks would only be equatable if he suggested that if other countries didn't handle terrorists, and they attacked Australia, then the Aussies would retaliate by attacking random cities of the country that hosted the terrorists.

Precedent is a joke. "Once you have created a precedent, anything is possible" - Obviously, it was possible to do it the first time, without having a precedent.

I'll get to your previous entertaining post after I cross the border and get to work.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, I have the rather sane notion that rights are not static and can change greatly depending upon the circumstances under which you try to apply them. For example, I would normally consider killing another human being to be morally wrong, but if I was fighting in a war I would have no problem killing my enemy. It's all shades of grey.

Killing means nothing, but the issue is how these mores change. One individual can't claim to switch the morality of the whole: the majority must agree to change it. Only once the majority agrees to a change does a change take place. The vast majority of humanity does not agree with this change since they know they loose out on it, and a minoritymay try, but will fail, to enforce its new morality on the whole, specially if they do so in a hypocitical manner.

Morality is not absolute, therefore rights and laws are also not absolute.

I completely agree that morality is not absolute, but the process is. As I said before, a minority, no matter how powerful, can't succeed in changing the morality, and if it tries, then it must be willing to accept other chalanges to the accepted code. After all, Al qaeda is also trying to chalange the system. I fail tos ee how the US can itself try to change the system, yet claim that its change is more valid than Al Qaeda's, once you state there are no absolutes (though I must say Drake that ypou have never struck me as a relativist, and my guess is that your relativism only applies to those things you want changed)

Bull****. They are several parts of the US Constitution that have been infringed upon, but it hasn't made the whole Constitution irrelevant. Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

I don't believe that there is such a things as a slipepry slope, but precedent does matter. Once you chllange the system, the whole system must be looked at. The fact is that every part of the constituion has been challenged and in some way infringged upon. Find me one bit that hasn't since 1791. If the right of sovereingty is not sacrosant, then whats wrong with the international Court of Justice? Or Kyoto? What strikes me most unappealing and disingenous about your position is that you argue for soveriegnty when it benefits your view and attack it when it doesn't, then still have the gall to question the ability of others to do the same.

As I said above: challange the system, and it is all in question: the parts you don't like, and the parts you do. And you better have a damn good arguemtn why certain changes must be made but not others. Sadly, those arguments have yet to materialize.

[Drake Tungsten]

The kung-fu master strikes again...

Nice post, MtG.

[Sprayber]

Didnt Howard say that if there was no alternative, then Oz would take action? You seem to think that means he wants to go around invading countries right and left. In fact you seem to think that's what the US wants. If nation has the power to fight battles before they reach their homeland then they should do so. But they do so knowing that turn about is fair play. That is why week nations chose not to and strong nations sometimes take that gamble. Morality plays only a small part, if any, in that decision. Now you can talk about right and wrong all you want, but it won't change reality.

And the reason he took it back is because he is a follower not a leader.

[Drake Tungsten]

though I must say Drake that ypou have never struck me as a relativist

You obviously don't know my views very well, then.

What strikes me most unappealing and disingenous about your position is that you argue for soveriegnty when it benefits your view and attack it when it doesn't, then still have the gall to question the ability of others to do the same.

I never supported such a position, so don't associate it with me. Our enemies can selectively use the right of sovereignty to protect their interests all the want; I expect them to. But we have every right to fight for our own interests and crush terrorist groups who threaten our people, even if it means we have to violate national sovereignty sometimes.

I only got involved in this thread because of your statement that one "can't choose laws or rights". You certainly can and I wanted to make that clear. Don't take our disagreement on that specific issue as a sign that I oppose every point you have made; that isn't the case.

[GePap]

MtG: while I respect and have respected previous of your posts, you dfo have the annoying and reprehensible aspect of being vaiglorious and conceited. I know plenty of ME history. I just don't make the assumption that fact all lead to the same conclusions and I am not blind to the notion of diverngent viewpoints. Hopefuly when you get back to my more 'hilarious' posts you will not be so petulant a child.

As for your points:

This war against "terrorism" is a war against Al qaeda. Most of the Islamist grousp you speak of are national groups, groups which do not carry out international atatcks against general targets. Cehchnya, for ewxample, is a Russian issue only (Chechens don't carry out atatcks against the US, just Russian interests) Al Qaeda does, and vital to the creation of this network was the funding and training that the US and western allies gave Islamist to have them fight Communism. So the West does have a great responsibility for makign these anti-west groups (and not simply national-interest groups) possible.

1. We had the support of the Yemeni government. there was no reach of sovereignty. HOward was speaking of something far more fundamental than one tiny act. Which again was why he took the statement back.

2. re: my post to Drake.

3. This great difference you speak of is one of capabilities, not morals. The US, and to some extent, Australia, has the capability to strike in such a way as to just kill insurgent. The insurgents don't. When they have to kill, they must find another way, which means soft targets, civilians. I fail to see where you would have the evidence to make your statement about what they mean to do. It would serve their cause far more if they couls violently overthrow the governments they seek to topple, yet they have not done so, why? Because they are weak.

Many things are taboo. They are not to be done. Take making a human clone. Today countless laws have been passed to stop it. Now lets say someone clone a child, and the child is healthy. What validity do those anti-cloning laws now have? The precedent of breaking the law makes it possible to overturn them, to destroy them. If no one were to clone a healthy child, then there would be no precedent to overturn them , now would there? Pleas etry to argue above childish word games....

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Didnt Howard say that if there was no alternative, then Oz would take action? You seem to think that means he wants to go around invading countries right and left. In fact you seem to think that's what the US wants. If nation has the power to fight battles before they reach their homeland then they should do so. But they do so knowing that turn about is fair play. That is why week nations chose not to and strong nations sometimes take that gamble. Morality plays only a small part, if any, in that decision. Now you can talk about right and wrong all you want, but it won't change reality.

And the reason he took it back is because he is a follower not a leader.

People overestimate the power of western militaries to stop terrorism. The best way to stop it is with the support of the local political system.

I don't think Howard means to invade. Australia could hardly ever do that, certaninly to any of its much bigger (in population) neihgbors. BUt Australia hardly has the same capabilities as the US does to make these sorts of strikes, and its neighbors aren't the Taliban. So the nice clean-cut strikes the envisions would be impossible. It would necessitate men on the ground, and that would be problematic for Australia and its neighbors, since men on the ground is considered a far greater step than airstrikes.