Do you find yourself having to remind yourself not to support the plucky underdog?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Does anyone else besides myself see the Security Council argument as B.S.? The Security Council is merely an extension of the idea of a Great Power Congress, dating to the 1815 Congress of Vienna and even before. Each country of the UNSC is a sovereign state, and acts according to its wishes.

The U.S. felt that (whether they are right or not) that Iraq is currently a danger to its vital national interests. France has its own issues at stake in Iraq, and opposes action. Russia and China want to balance the power against the U.S., and refuse to give their support. The U.K. supports the U.S. to spite France and decrease its international influence. At a smaller level, the Eastern European countries are supporting the U.S. as a lever against French influence in the international stage, etc.

No country is acting out of a high minded respect for international law and hoping for the loving embrace of all of mankind or anything like that. The whole situation is one of jockeying for position on the World Stage. The Cold War is over, and the Euro countires don't need the U.S. to be their big brother anymore. France acts in the interests of France. If France felt that it had a vital interest somewhere in the world it would do as it wished, regardless of the UNSC.

Well said.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You think it's better for Saddam and his thugs to stay in power because you suspect the alleged unilateral action is designed to oppress the Iraqi people even worse than what has happened under Saddam? There are decent reasons to oppose the war, but not this "unilateral" kenard, it isn't even a unilateral action to begin with as if that matters.

Look, I'm not against unilateral actions just because I have some fuzzy pinko belief that anything that the security council decides is morally right and benign. And yes, obviously I find the end of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq to be a very positive side effect indeed. However, who rules in Iraqs effects on my self interest is slim at best. my assessment of the poltics behind the war is that it's first and foremost in the interest of the US government. A unilateral action with the interests of that government in the forefront is rarely something that coincide with my interests. If the US is prepared to start wars like this for its interests there's virtually no end to what they might do against my interests. It's in my interest that the 1930s kind of behavior of the US government ends.

[Berzerker]

Kropotkin -

Look, I'm not against unilateral actions just because I have some fuzzy pinko belief that anything that the security council decides is morally right and benign. And yes, obviously I find the end of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq to be a very positive side effect indeed. However, who rules in Iraqs effects on my self interest is slim at best. my assessment of the poltics behind the war is that it's first and foremost in the interest of the US government. A unilateral action with the interests of that government in the forefront is rarely something that coincide with my interests. If the US is prepared to start wars like this for its interests there's virtually no end to what they might do against my interests. It's in my interest that the 1930s kind of behavior of the US government ends.

What did the USA do in the 30's to deserve your spite? We didn't enter WWII until the 40's, was that against your interest?And no kidding, the administration of the USA sees this as in the US interest, what else is new? So you want to see American soldiers die in large enough numbers so the US might not act against your interests in the future? Would you care to list past US actions that were against your interest or that of your country and compare that list to past US actions that were either indirectly in your interest or your country's?

[Kropotkin]

I wasn't refeering to something the US did in the 1930s, I talked about a 1930s kind of behavior.

And I didn't exacly say I thought the US acted in the interest of the US, I said they acted in the interest of the US government.

The current US goverment has constantly acted against my interests on issues as enviroment and trade for example. A superpower that acts on short term self interests is not something that i find to be good for anyone (me included) in the long run.

If a american or an Iraqi soldier dies is of no prima facie difference to me. At least as long as it does mean that Saddam Hussein stays in power but I found that to be very unlikely.

[Dis]

Cipro, gas masks.

Our troops are going to get slammed with chemical weapons .

I actually believed they wouldn't use them. I really hope I'm right about that.

Perhaps it is the U.S. and the U.K. that are the underdogs.

[Berzerker]

Kropotkin -

I wasn't refeering to something the US did in the 1930s, I talked about a 1930s kind of behavior.

That helps pin it down.

And I didn't exacly say I thought the US acted in the interest of the US, I said they acted in the interest of the US government.

I didn't say you did, I referred to the administration acting in what it considers the US interest.

The current US goverment has constantly acted against my interests on issues as enviroment and trade for example.

Any specifics? Now you think every country's policies have to be in your interest? I hope you withstand frustration well since the world doesn't revolve around you.

A superpower that acts on short term self interests is not something that i find to be good for anyone (me included) in the long run.

Not good for Saddam, but maybe the Iraqi people have an opinion on the matter.

If a american or an Iraqi soldier dies is of no prima facie difference to me. At least as long as it does mean that Saddam Hussein stays in power but I found that to be very unlikely.

But you said it does make a difference, you want the US to lose enough soldiers to deter the US from acting against your interest in the future, as if Congress and the President will turn to Kropotkin in the future to dictate US trade policy.

[Kropotkin]

Any specifics? Now you think every country's policies have to be in your interest? I hope you withstand frustration well since the world doesn't revolve around you.

It doesn't? OK maybe it doesn't but I want it to. A tad more serious. I would want every country to act in what I consider to me my interest. I started in this thread that, yes from a egoistic standpoint I could see some emotional and rational resons to support the underdog on a tactical level.

As for specifics I'm disturbed by the US lack of will to make any significant changes about what their economy is doing to the enviroment. Now, I don't think that other countries are perfect in any way but a US citizen wastes a hell of a lot more energy and oil as a european on roughly the same level of welfare.

But you said it does make a difference, you want the US to lose enough soldiers to deter the US from acting against your interest in the future.

Yeah but I used the term prima facie that makes it possible for me to have the cake and eat it. If I disregard the politics it doesn't matter much to me.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think its hard not to feel sympathy for the little guy with the rifle defending his country against invaders as anyone would.

The fact the coalition has overwhelming firepower and every military advantage works against them sympathy wise.

[MikeH]

That's exactly why they needed the UN and the world community behind them before they started. Now the coalition is in danger of starting to look like the bad guys which never should have been the case.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Those bastards are not "underdogs" they're brutal murdering thugs, in a unit that prides itself on being one of the privileged enforcers and maintainers of power for one of the worst current thugs on the planet.

Why is there no water and no power in Basra?

[Berzerker]

Kropotkin -

Now, I don't think that other countries are perfect in any way but a US citizen wastes a hell of a lot more energy and oil as a european on roughly the same level of welfare.

The same level of welfare? We live in a big country with alot of miles to travel to supply food and goods to not only Americans, but a good part of the world. It's easy for Europeans to reduce oil consumption when they don't have to drive very far, but do you have actual stats to back that up? Btw, the US government did not act against your interests if your interest is to increase an American's cost for energy. That would be a lack of action against your interest.

[Kropotkin]

Berz: Look up Umeå on a map...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The same level of welfare? We live in a big country with alot of miles to travel to supply food and goods to not only Americans, but a good part of the world. It's easy for Europeans to reduce oil consumption when they don't have to drive very far, but do you have actual stats to back that up?

The US has 5% of the world's population and uses 20% of the total energy.

[Kropotkin]

Or let look at this this way:
CO2 Emissions in metric tons per US$10,000 GDP and per person in 1998:

USA 1,77 / 5,43
UK 1,17 / 2,52
Sweden 0,70 / 1,50
France 0,78 / 1,72
Italy 0,91 / 1,97

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Why is there no water and no power in Basra?

Ask the Iraqis.