[extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense
mlorrey at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 27 15:30:06 UTC 2004
--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:38:04 +1000, Brett Paatsch
> <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:
> > >
> > > > When Bush bungled the handling of the UN after getting
> > > > 1441 agreed to unanimously and invaded Iraq on a timetable that
> > > > alone was setting and against resolution 1441 and against the
> > > > Charter he squandered an opportunity to strengthen civilization
> > > > (a more capable President could have handled the UN situation
> > > > better and made the UN a better institution in the interests of
> > > > US and of the rest of the world) instead, working to a
> > > > and/or an agenda of his own, he decided to just go ahead and
> > > > invade.
> > >
> > > How would a more capable President have handled the situation?
> > He'd have threatened to revoke the Charter and withdraw the US
> > from the UN in the media if Chirac of France did not come up
> > with a general standard for determining when the UN Security
> > should go to war. The security council has to be willing to go to
> > sometimes or their can be no peace. At a critical point Chirac
> > of France was saying that France would "never, never" go to war.
> Nonsense! Hypocrisy! One nation's head must come up with when to go
> war and if he doesn't we simply withdraw altogether? Isn't this
> ignoring the 60-odd very strong resolutions against the behavior of
> Israel whom we support nearly without reservation and never call for
> a war against? There was no good evidence for war worthy breaking of
> UN weapsons resolution in Iraq. So France and other countries quite
> rightly held back. We went ahead anyway and made fools of ourselves
> to say the least.
This is just not true. France, at the time, was convinced there was WMD
at the time, and said so. They opposed the US only because they believe
there needs to be a 'counterbalance' to the US. Since the only real
counterbalance to the US today seems to be radical islamists, their
statement is clearly one of alliance.
> > Had Saddam had weapons of mass destruction Chiracs position would
> > have given him confidence that the UN would not and could not
> > because the French President would not make the necessary call and
> > as a permanent security council member could veto and resolution
> > would have required force.
> You mean like we have vetoed any action against Israel for all these
> many long years? Besides you are setting up a hypothetical that is
> pure supposition.
Just as we vetoed actions sponsored by the Soviet Union (oh, btw, they
were the sponsor of those resolutions.... yuk yuk)....
> > In a world where terrorists could have weapons of mass distruction
> > it is not unreasonable that the sovereignty of countries be put
> > provided that it is done in the right way. There is not currently a
> > workable right way. Bush could have made it so that there was
> > - but instead he chose a wrong way.
> In a world where the down-trodden may use terrorism I would advise
> being damn careful about invading people's homeland on suspicion.
> I would also advise being careful about bullying various peoples.
> Impunity is harder to come by. Of course this advice will be
> considered being "soft on terrorism". More "realistic" folks will
> instead turn the world into an armed camp and throw away their
> freedoms to stop those insane terrorists who "hate us because we are
If the down-trodden kept to themselves and actually attacked the
governments who are actually trodding them down, i.e. fascist muslim
governments, I could see your logic. But they don't.
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-William Pitt (1759-1806)
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
More information about the extropy-chat