Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War - Page 6

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 19:46

Wierd, my last post shows here, but not elsewhere

Anyway, I enjoyed this thread. It seems to be ending.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 19:50

I can send you copies of my bank records, etc. if that will make it "verifiable"

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 19:53

That's ok. I could send you copies of mine. That would probable show more evidence

Ned · February 10, 2003, 20:32

Bill Clinton, of all people, said the other day on the Larry King live that the U.S. had the legal right to lead a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein regardless of whether or not the U.N. Security Council issued an express authorization for the use of force. Clearly, what Clinton had in mind was his own unilateral action in Kosovo.

So if it is indeed legal for the U.S. to proceed to "protect the world" without the U.N.'s authorization, why don't we simply ignore the U.N.?

I think the answer is obvious. The world does not perceive individual actions of one nation or a group of nations to be lawful if those actions are not authorized by the United Nations.

Besides, if we were to declare a policy of spreading democracy throughout the world through force, then automatically we would make half the world enemies of United States. Such a policy may even provoke a world war.

The sole justification for proceeding without U.N. authority, therefore, is under circumstances where the U.N. has failed to act due to a veto at the Security Council.

I would also argue that the offending nation

1) has to actually invade another nation without just cause;
2) threaten world peace through the acquisition of weapons of mass instruction in combination with aggressive conduct toward its neighbors; or
3) engage in an ethnic cleansing operation against its own people, such as we saw Kosovo.

There may be other circumstances that would justify the "unilateral" use of force. However, the purpose for any action would be solely to protect or restore peace, or save human life. Unilateral use of force cannot be justified solely to spread democracy.

Ned · February 10, 2003, 20:34

DP

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 20:37

Ned - Dictators use force to maintain their power. While it is true that in some cases, years (spreading into decades) of pressure will evoke change (SK), this is a mighty long time to make the people suffering under the rule OF those dictatorial powers wait for a breath of freedom.

The Shrub, for all his maniacal BS, has demonstrated that it is possible to line 'em up like bowling pins, call them what they are in public, and not provoke a state of war for doing so ("Axis of Evil").

Is he right? Are they evil? They sure fit most definitions I've ever seen of the word.

Are we at war with them? Not yet.

And, I do not propose that we declare war on every dictatorial state in the same breath, either.

Rather, we can, through the UN, issue mandates for change. They can either accept them, or stand in violation. Standing in violation will lead to "dire consequences." Their choice. Free their own people, or the world body will do it for them.

-=Vel=-

Ned · February 10, 2003, 20:48

Vel, If the offending dictator is threatening world peace or engaged in ethnic cleansing, then we act. If they are minding their own business and otherwise behaving in a half-civilized manner, why should we invade?

China and Cuba, on the whole, have been minding their own business and have not been engaged in ethnic cleansing. Do we have justification for war?

I think Bush is going after the countries that have invaded their neighbors, Iraq and North Korea, and or who have sponsored terrorism, Afghanistan and Iran. These countries are not content to live in peace with their neighbors and justify being listed on the Axis of Evil.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 20:55

I quite agree, and in the initial assessment above, I think that aggressive nations should obviously be placed high on the list.

And once those immediate threats to global security are well and duly dealt with, I believe that even IF a dictatorial nation is "behaving itself" the suppression of liberties of those that they rule over is a morally justified reason to work toward their removal from power (in that case, starting with little tin pot dictators that we installed in the prosecution of the cold war....more unmaking of our own demons).

-=Vel=-

Ned · February 10, 2003, 21:02

Vel, in a sense, what you advocate has long been US policy. We couch it in terms of supporting "human rights." Suppressing freedom of political speech and freedom of religion is the hallmark of dictatorships. When a country slips in the "human rights' metric, they loose MFN status, for example.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 21:07

::nodding::

A step that, IMO does not go nearly far enough.

The key difference, however, is that as the Democratic nations of the world won the cold war, this is truly *our* chance to see the seeds that were sown in its winning to every corner of the globe.

Our chance to truly make a difference.

It's not one we should pass on lightly.

Give the UN the teeth it needs to help create the kind of world that offers everyone a voice. To spread peace and liberty to people who have never in their lives known it.

-=Vel=-

Ned · February 10, 2003, 21:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
::nodding::

A step that, IMO does not go nearly far enough.

The key difference, however, is that as the Democratic nations of the world won the cold war, this is truly *our* chance to see the seeds that were sown in its winning to every corner of the globe.

Our chance to truly make a difference.

It's not one we should pass on lightly.

Give the UN the teeth it needs to help create the kind of world that offers everyone a voice. To spread peace and liberty to people who have never in their lives known it.

-=Vel=-

Vel, then we could support democracy movements in such countries not unlike "people's revolutions" that the USSR supported for decades across the globe.

In fact, I believe this is the plan for Iran.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 21:53

Yes, and in states where we can expect to see farily immediate results, this would be the prudent thing to do. But in cases where the dictatorial powers are so entrenched, and the people not even daring to whisper a word against their "leaders" this will only prolong their suffering.

In Iran, there is an undercurrent that would support this kind of approach, and when offered, it is surely a better alternative, but when the ruling powers are so deeply entrenched (and especially where they are our own making), we should unmake them.

-=Vel=-

Ned · February 10, 2003, 22:17

Vel, you know it is interesting to know democracy or republicanism was little known in the whole history of man? We had brief, shining examples in Athens and the Delian league. But on the whole, even Greek city states were ruled by tryants.

Rome adopted a repubican form of government and spread it throughout the Mediterranean. But even Roman democracy succumbed to the ever increasing autocracy of the Imperial government.

The people of Iceland founded a parliament 1000 years ago. Britain began its own experiment with democracy with the Magna Carta.

Still, even until modern times, democracy was virtually unknown in much of the world. In the last century, the whole concept of democracy and freedom was under challenge by fascism and communism, and by militarism in Japan. We weathered those storms, and, as you say, we now find ourselfs the sole remaining superpower with the power to spread our ideals.

I agree, Vel, the cause is just and is worth fighting for. Mom, apple pie and the American Way.

But we do have a public relations problem. Many will think that we are more after an Empire like the Romans that after a democratic world. Witness the rants of Che.

How do we overcome this?

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 22:27

I like the "Mom, Apple Pie, and the American Way," line but that, I fear, is part of the PR problem.

We can't package it and sell it like that, even when we mean "with liberty and justice for all" because if we couch it in terms of the former, then we come off sounding like we want to Americanize the world.

IMO, the best way around the PR problem is to operate through the UN. Bolster and strengthen it, giving the world body as a whole a voice, and enabling that organization to become much more than it currently is.

The first baby steps toward doing that would be to begin living up to our responsibilities IN the UN, by assuming more of a leadership role there, building coalitions and voting blocks of nations who are eager and open to see a strengthened UN, and by abiding by its decisions, even when they don't play our way. Specific things we can do to get the ball rolling would be to pay all back UN dues, keep them current, and abide by their decision regarding Nicaragua (and others I'm prolly not aware of).

Do that, and we demonstrate that we're bringing a fresh perspective to the table.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 22:28

PS: And I agree....Democratic ideals have had such a fleeting time on the world stage, given the length of our history, and yet, those moments do indeed stand out in our minds (as well as our histories).

Definitely something worth fighting for.

-=Vel=-

Ned · February 10, 2003, 22:35

I say we reform the UN first. If the UN puts countries like Libya in charge of Human Rights and Iraq in charge of Disarmament, then we should suspend all payments and support.

I agree we should lead the UN much the way Bush has been leading the UN on Iraq. I have been highly critical of the UN my entire life. But finally with the vote in November I see that the UN can do some good. But, it never would have done so without Bush virtually holding a gun to its head.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 22:44

I don't think we'll be able to do that though, much as I'd like to agree.

In this case, I think we must first demonstrate a willingness to play by the established rules before anyone will take us seriously with regards to changing them.

So, if we first do what we're "supposed to do" as far as current UN rules go, and show we're willing to play the game, I think that, coupled with our economic and diplomatic clout, can net us some real, tangible gains as far as strengthening the UN towards its eventual new mission.

-=Vel=-

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 22:46

Oh my God.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 22:47

And just for JT, we'll officially change the name to the Confederate Nations of the World....

-=Vel=-

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 23:05

I skimmed the entire thread and I am agast. This is the single most out of touch thread I have ever read on Poly, and that is saying something. Please tell me that this is a satire contest. Please.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 23:07

Not a satire contest, and not designed to be meshed with the current state of affairs....just an excercise in alternate possibilities.

-=Vel=-

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 23:14

Possible what? Look, let me state some facts to get you all back on track. America is a capitalist democracy and it is not going to become communist, anarchist, socialist, libitarian, green or any of this other far out wacko stuff. Ever, short of the destruction of conquest of the country.

There is never going to be a one world government short of military conquest and then there will never be total control.

The UN as a concept related to world security was is valid under only one scenario, the existance of two oposing superpowers giving the UN a role of mediation. With the implosion of the Soviet Union the UN ceased to matter.

NATO also died with the Soviet Union as we are seeing now that the Germans and French are welching on their responsibilitites now.

And the EU, not specifically mentioned above but lurking in the background is going to crumble like a cookie at the first hint of danger.

Now, given those parameters which is REALITY why don't you folks discuss some alternatives that might come to pass in this plane of existence.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 23:15

cut dp

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 23:19

Awwww, c'mon JT....never say never....every good Southerner knows that!

While it is true that, given the current geopolitical climate, the stuff we're talking about here won't happen, that's not the point of the exercise. This is rather akin to those "Moderated Scenarios" only without the moderator, and with no specific scenario in mind.

It's simply thinking about possibilities that extend outside the neat (well, not so neat, in the case of our planet Earth) box.

Does it matter that many (and perhaps most) of the ideas presented here are unlikely to occur? None of us talking about it hold positions of power to press these ideas through anyway. And if we're going to speculate, why speculate inside the lines? Much more adventuresome to just go where the Muse takes you....

-=Vel=-

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 23:23

Okay, in that case I want to promote dental assistants as world leaders. I love to have my teeth cleaned cause they all have big breasts, sweet breath, white teeth and, in the south, wonderful accents.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 23:24

My dentist has limited my teeth cleaning sessions so I am getting another dentist.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 23:26

JT, you rock!

-=Vel=-
PS: and I'm gonna start using YOUR dentist!

Arrian · February 11, 2003, 10:35

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
btw, your only verifiable example was Bill Gates, and I blew that one out of the water

Wow, you really are obstinate, aren't you?

Vel and I each provided examples from our own experience, and you respond by assuming we're LYING? What's the point of debating something if you're gonna lie? Frankly, I'm insulted (hence my dredging up a threadjack).

I could do some research and give you "verifiable" examples of social mobility but I'm not going to waste my time on something that 1) is readily apparent in everyday life and 2) will not convince you you're wrong anyway. You are wedded to your ideology and that's that.

But you're in for a lifetime of dissappointment if you think the revolution is coming, comrade...

"...but if you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow! You know it's gonna be, alright. Alright..."

-Arrian

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 11:33

A) I don't carry pictures of mao.

B) I could give you 100 examples where there is either little or no social mobility for each example that you could give me where there is.

I'm not talking about people increasing their income as they get older. That's a common known fact. I'm talking about very significant gains in income. The kind that allows you to live significantly better than your parents did.

DinoDoc · February 11, 2003, 11:38

Why are you supporting the exploitation of the workers by indulging in the crass consumerism of both buying an internet connection and a computer, DuncanK?