Has war started with Iran?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

I dont believe I'm arguing this point.

You seemed to be blaming the UN , but it's actually the Govt's in the Security Council seeking their own national interests over and above the UN's actual ideals.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Sgt Seb

war is waged to serve the national interest.

profit (ie haliburton) is a bonus

You seem to speak of National Interests as some sort of automatic right.

One of the basic principles of trade is that it makes National States interdependant and thus makes wars between them not in their national interests. EG China and the US.

If you take the example of say a Dairy owner (borderline profitable businesses at best) who burns down a competitors Dairy and cites that it was in his business interest to do so , and have the Police say "sure dude not problem". This is unacceptable from a moral stand point.

Now take the example of the Australians seeking a change of Govt. in East Timor last year , just so they could continue to steal THEIR oil. This was done through the use of Aussie friendly 3rd party groups in Timor and ABC news.

And what does NZ do? The same as what it did during the East Timorese Genocide , it put it's head in the sand and let them die.

So how and why would it have served NZ interests to have the Oil in East Timors hands? Easy , it would have been more profitable for us because we could send them kit set houses , food , medicine , and we are more geared up
for ethic friendly educational services , because of our own better aproach than say the Aussie govt. could provide (yeah NZ is better IMHO).

We could help them build Hotels for a Tourist Industry , with out the terrorism risks of say Bali.

We could have some of our own companies go there and grow crops to sell back to us and others that we can't grow in NZ due to climate.

The list is endless , why? Because a smaller country can generate a more diffuse economy for the benefit of all than one Aussie Oil company can.

And the Aussies can't say they need the oil for their own use aka National Intersets , as all oil goes on the World Market doesn't it? It's just who gets the benefit of the Oil profits. I think it may even be a US oil company anyways.

[chubby]

fucking WORD, rep

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

You continue to amaze me bro.

Perhaps you should get yourself a better education and start taking notice of what goes on around the world - this will help prevent you from being amazed when confronted with the truth.

[ZoSo]

Burnt on nearly all fronts now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6349287.stm

[Genesis]

Random thought - anyone know what the kill-count is for the US over the last 100 years in comparsion to say, the British over the last 1000 years?

[caffiend]

And the fabrication of 'just cause' continues: http://www.stuff.co.nz/3959348a12.html

How BS does that sound? It's all soundbites, buzzword acronyms and tired rhetoric.

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Working on that principal then even domestic law is an illusion.

no, because domestic law is enforceable by the government, which has a monopoly on force.

international law is unenforceable unless the law being broken happens to coincide with a state's national interests, assuming the state is willing and able to do something about the law being broken.\

what can we do if china puts up tariffs against our lamb? complain to the WTO. if the other members decide that china's actions against us is against their long-term interests, then they may act to help us. otherwise we are fucked. this kind of example shows clearly that the underpinnings of international law are not based on legal or moral justification but cold, hard, AMORAL national interests.

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by Rep

You seem to speak of National Interests as some sort of automatic right.

they are not a 'right' as such, they are a guide for a state if it wants to be successful in the international system. if a state decides to ignore its national interests, it will quickly feel the consequences, through war, or economic collapse. states must adapt or they will fall, and national interests are the best tool they have to make sure their foreign policy is pointed in the right direction.

you guys seem to think states should act altruistically, especially the united states. but in reality, the US is a democracy, and as much as kiwis dislike it, the fact is that american public doesn't see their country as a 'world policeman'. heck they get cold feet losing a few soldiers in africa (re: blackhawk down). i think we all need to stop thinking that all states including the US, should act how we would like them to, compared to what is in their OWN best interests.

One of the basic principles of trade is that it makes National States interdependant and thus makes wars between them not in their national interests. EG China and the US.

If you take the example of say a Dairy owner (borderline profitable businesses at best) who burns down a competitors Dairy and cites that it was in his business interest to do so , and have the Police say "sure dude not problem". This is unacceptable from a moral stand point.

Like draco, you confuse the international system with a domestic society. the dairy owners action is immoral because there are enforceable laws - the police have a monopoly on the use of legitimate force. in the international system, if another country invades another, morality simply doesn't exist - its completely relative. germany invading russia, to hitler and his nazis, was a completely moral action. to the russians, it was genocide. the person who turns out being right morally speaking, is the victor (he who wins the war writes the history books).

Now take the example of the Australians seeking a change of Govt. in East Timor last year , just so they could continue to steal THEIR oil. This was done through the use of Aussie friendly 3rd party groups in Timor and ABC news.

Do you think the east timorese would have even got their independence if it hadn't been for the australian troops that were sent in? the aussies did all the heavy-lifting in the fight for east timor's independence you realise right? or would you rather the east timorese were left by themselves to get massacred by the indonesian militia for another 30 years? remember that no other state was willing or able to help the east timorese, except the australians. and why did they help? because after 9/11, state's cannot afford to have failed states so close to their borders, as they are a potential haven for terrorists or other criminals. east timor sits right next to australia, so it was clearly in australia's national interest to intervene.

And what does NZ do? The same as what it did during the East Timorese Genocide , it put it's head in the sand and let them die.

So how and why would it have served NZ interests to have the Oil in East Timors hands? Easy , it would have been more profitable for us because we could send them kit set houses , food , medicine , and we are more geared up
for ethic friendly educational services , because of our own better aproach than say the Aussie govt. could provide (yeah NZ is better IMHO).

We could help them build Hotels for a Tourist Industry , with out the terrorism risks of say Bali.

We could have some of our own companies go there and grow crops to sell back to us and others that we can't grow in NZ due to climate.

The list is endless , why? Because a smaller country can generate a more diffuse economy for the benefit of all than one Aussie Oil company can.

And the Aussies can't say they need the oil for their own use aka National Intersets , as all oil goes on the World Market doesn't it? It's just who gets the benefit of the Oil profits. I think it may even be a US oil company anyways.

ok since ive already iterated that it was the australian military that enabled the east timorese to even have the possibility of their own oil, now lets discuss the economic side.

first, east timor is still a basket case, which could possibly become a failed-state because of its weak government. this is not in australia's interests. why then, as radicals and liberals argue, would they purposefully keep east timor down, and 'steal' their oil profits? what australia WANTS is a stable, democratic east timor, not a poor, fragile east timor on the verge of collapse. east timorese oil is a critical factor of its own economic development and therefore its in australia's own interests to help them develop it. i forget the exact division of the oil in the east timor gap but australia does NOT get all of it. i think in one of the areas 90% of the oil goes to east timor, and the other is 50/50. the international lawyers complain that this is unfair because it breaks the international law of the sea or something but the reality is, east timor is dependent on australia and the international community already. in other words it is a fallacy to argue that australia is stealing east timorese oil because it is in australia's own national interests to strengthen the economy and government of east timor! the radical argument misses the realities of international politics as usual, instead focusing on the 'evil' and 'exploitative' western states.

heres another way of putting it. if australia decided it wanted all of east timor's oil, it might gain marginally in economic terms. however this would undoubtedly result in the collapse of east timor's government and australia would then have to send in its force AGAIN to restabilise the country. this is bad for australia, because it costs money, alot of money. much more than oil revenue from east timor's underdeveloped oil industry. a re-invasion might also cost australian lives, which is politically damaging to howard. therefore it is only rational to assume that australia wants to help east timor develop and stablise, so australia does not have to send in its military forces again in the future. exploiting them does not achieve this objective.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Sgt Seb

moral relativist bullshit

so... what you're saying is when US civilians are dying like flys from the numerous and increasingly effective retaliatory strikes thrown at them by victims of US attempts to 'protect their national interests' , we wont have to listen to cockbites complain about how despicable those fucking arab terrorists are, right?

[?>Superman]

Dude, its just national interest. Chill out man.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Sgt Seb

no, because domestic law is enforceable by the government, which has a monopoly on force.

international law is unenforceable unless the law being broken happens to coincide with a state's national interests, assuming the state is willing and able to do something about the law being broken.\

what can we do if china puts up tariffs against our lamb? complain to the WTO. if the other members decide that china's actions against us is against their long-term interests, then they may act to help us. otherwise we are fucked. this kind of example shows clearly that the underpinnings of international law are not based on legal or moral justification but cold, hard, AMORAL national interests.

Wrong - the government has a theoretical monopoly on force but they certainly can't stop crime or even investigate all of it. By living in the society you agree to those laws so when you break them you are accountable after you commit the crime.

The UN was also supposed to have a monopoly on force. No country was to invade another without the UNs say so unless it was was in self defense against an already invading army. These are rules that all countries have agreed to by being in the UN and so can be held accountable for their actions that violate those rules.

I know this isn't happening but that only goes to show that nations are acting immorally both by those not demanding that the UN do something about the countries that are breaking the rules (and supplying the resources needed for the UN to do so) and the countries that are breaking the rules. How far could the US go if the rest of the world decided that they had broken the rules and that they should act in concert to bring this rogue nation to heel?

National self-interest is no excuse for acting immorally especially when you consider that the actions probably don't have anything to do with national self-interest but the financial interests of big business. War spells profit for those who deal in it. Getting access to the oil in the ME will benefit the companies that do so but unlikely to bring about any benefit to those countries the oil belongs to.

[GRiM ReeFer]

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."


"I know," President Bush answered.


"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.


President Bush chuckled and walked away.

[chubby]

abso-fucking-lutely reefer. it blows my mind that the same people who insist bush isnt a moron, also seem to believe that experienced politicians, with a huge pool of brains and knowlege to draw on, would actually make the decisions re. ME policy that they have- in the genuine expectation that happiness and stability would result.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Perhaps you should get yourself a better education and start taking notice of what goes on around the world - this will help prevent you from being amazed when confronted with the truth.

Or, I could avoid it all together and walk a mile in your shoes, innit.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by Rep

You seemed to be blaming the UN , but it's actually the Govt's in the Security Council seeking their own national interests over and above the UN's actual ideals.

I was claiming the UN was ineffective. We all already know why.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

I was claiming the UN was ineffective. We all already know why.

Your generally right wing views seemed to be in line with most anti-UN propaganda , which almost aways comes from the US , who's population has been fed a lot of anti-UN trash.

If you differ from that you should have explained it. I did.



And as for Sgt Seb , you seem to be saying that Hitler was moral in killing 40 million Russians?

Hitler is the absolute measurement of the worst of what the human race has done in the 20th Century. And what you are saying is wrong in the minds of almost every human on the planet , so I propose you leave earth and rendezvous out at the lagrange point of your morality...

...near Pluto.



Thinking like yours would make a pedo shudder.

You may now beg forgivness from your fellow posters.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by Rep

Your generally right wing views seemed to be in line with most anti-UN propaganda , which almost aways comes from the US , who's population has been fed a lot of anti-UN trash.

If you differ from that you should have explained it. I did.

Unlike some, I feel no true need to explain the obvious - assuming that other posters do infact possess some small grain of intelligence.

Right wing? What does that even mean? Call me what you will though, your need to operate solely in tired, cheap cliches 'america populaton drip fed sheep baa' etc says far more.

As I've said before, unlike you, I do not automatically assume that any action of US/Anglo government is automatically evil. I, unlike you, do not automatically assume that any rival of the US is a poor hard-done by state, just trying to get by.

The liberal and socialist movements of yesteryear have lost thier way. You are the product. A mewling apologist for extremism and a supporter of power-plays that you lack the imagination to consider the consequences thereof.

The worst thing about you and your ilk though, is that you all think you're so fucking morally superior. As though you aren't a victim of propaganda yourself!

Right wing, why? Because I can see why things happen, and make less calls on the right and wrong of it?

Bah. Children.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

Unlike some, I feel no true need to explain the obvious - assuming that other posters do infact possess some small grain of intelligence.

Right wing? What does that even mean? Call me what you will though, your need to operate solely in tired, cheap cliches 'america populaton drip fed sheep baa' etc says far more.

As I've said before, unlike you, I do not automatically assume that any action of US/Anglo government is automatically evil. I, unlike you, do not automatically assume that any rival of the US is a poor hard-done by state, just trying to get by.

The liberal and socialist movements of yesteryear have lost thier way. You are the product. A mewling apologist for extremism and a supporter of power-plays that you lack the imagination to consider the consequences thereof.

The worst thing about you and your ilk though, is that you all think you're so fucking morally superior. As though you aren't a victim of propaganda yourself!

Right wing, why? Because I can see why things happen, and make less calls on the right and wrong of it?

Bah. Children.

Many people can see why things happen , war = profit ; poverty = cheap resources.

My politcal ideas are basically Democracy at home and abroad.

Socialist? Nah , but I do believe that in a Democracy that the people come first , before the State or Business. I prefer a Democracy where the voters are told the truth about the world , warts and all , and that their vote can kick a Govt's ass out of office if they add up that way. But Socialst as much as I believe in a quality society.

Liberal? Sure I believe in being free to belong to any group (as long as it doesn't desend into hate) , say what I like , live how I like and love how I like ; all as long as it doesn't hurt others or their free will.

I am also a Conservative ; in saving our scarce resources so there can even be future. I am very Conservative in expressing violence , allowing poverty and hate to exist. And I am an ultra-conservative when it comes to armaments , because lets face it , there are to many fuking guns in the world.

And I'm (hopefully) sometimes a Nationalist , when I look up at my countries flag and feel and see these good things in her...

...but then I am more often an Internationalist , because I believe in the need for all the above good everywhere in the world.

Guess I'm a kind of political rainbow , (sentimental even) , and you should be too.

Peace out.

[PsyK]

Originally Posted by Rep

I am also a Conservative ; in saving our scarce resources so there can even be future. I am very Conservative in expressing violence , allowing poverty and hate to exist. And I am an ultra-conservative when it comes to armaments , because lets face it , there are to many fuking guns in the world.

Uh, that's not conservative man. At all.

fucking hippie :P

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by Rep

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

[ZoSo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6353489.stm

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by chubby

so... what you're saying is when US civilians are dying like flys from the numerous and increasingly effective retaliatory strikes thrown at them by victims of US attempts to 'protect their national interests' , we wont have to listen to cockbites complain about how despicable those fucking arab terrorists are, right?

how you figured i was saying that out of what i wrote is kinda beyond me?

but in terms of US civilian casualties, i guess the people who create the policy in the pentagon will do some cost/benefit analysis to see if the national interests > the civilian casualties

e.g. creating a democracy in the middle east >> more stable mid east will cost x amount of american lives but will save many in the long term because there will be no more 9/11's (in theory)

yeh superman, i know i overuse the term but some people fail to realise that this is how the foreign policy of all state's is formulated, not from hippie idealist bs

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Wrong - the government has a theoretical monopoly on force but they certainly can't stop crime or even investigate all of it. By living in the society you agree to those laws so when you break them you are accountable after you commit the crime.

err yes there is crime but thats why we have a justice system, and the criminals that get away, will either be found out eventually or have to hide their crime. they can't openly flout the fact they are criminals. in international relations, there is no such thing as a crime, because it depends COMPLETELY ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE OBSERVER.

[QUOTE
The UN was also supposed to have a monopoly on force. No country was to invade another without the UNs say so unless it was was in self defense against an already invading army. These are rules that all countries have agreed to by being in the UN and so can be held accountable for their actions that violate those rules.
[/QUOTE
yes and this just shows what a facade international 'law' really is.

I know this isn't happening but that only goes to show that nations are acting immorally both by those not demanding that the UN do something about the countries that are breaking the rules (and supplying the resources needed for the UN to do so) and the countries that are breaking the rules. How far could the US go if the rest of the world decided that they had broken the rules and that they should act in concert to bring this rogue nation to heel?

heh...the rest of the world couldn't do shit, militarily or economically, and especially militarily.

National self-interest is no excuse for acting immorally especially when you consider that the actions probably don't have anything to do with national self-interest but the financial interests of big business. War spells profit for those who deal in it. Getting access to the oil in the ME will benefit the companies that do so but unlikely to bring about any benefit to those countries the oil belongs to.

radical marxist argument.

US foreign policy has almost always been fairly closely aligned to its true national interests, from 1945 onwards, with the possible exception of vietnam (although some will dispute that). big business and financial interests are a secondary factor.

security > economic interests - especially eocnomic interests of private businesses.

if you can find me an example of a major foreign policy decision by the US which was acted on primarily in the interests of a private company id be happy to hear about it. again, haliburton is not a good example because as we all know, the PNAC goals (whose members are rumsfeld, cheney, wolfowitz etc) and objectives supercede any private economic motives, they may have had.

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by Rep

And as for Sgt Seb , you seem to be saying that Hitler was moral in killing 40 million Russians?

Hitler is the absolute measurement of the worst of what the human race has done in the 20th Century. And what you are saying is wrong in the minds of almost every human on the planet , so I propose you leave earth and rendezvous out at the lagrange point of your morality...

...near Pluto.



Thinking like yours would make a pedo shudder.

You may now beg forgivness from your fellow posters.

way to completely miss the point dude

read what i wrote again and try to understand properly. hitler and his followers, and the neo-nazis today, thought, and think his actions were moral.

THEIR VALUE SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT TO YOURS.

why is your value system right and theirs wrong? it isnt

everyone has different moral standards, and noone can be proven right or wrong, EXCEPT BY SOCIETY AND LAWS.

in domestic society there are laws to punish what society views as immoral behaviour.

in international politics there are laws, but they are almost without exception make no moral judgements. why is this? different cultures, and different nations have COMPLETELY different standards as to what is moral.

re: your pedo statement, do you know what the legal age of conscent is in paraguay, as most nzgamers know its 14. in the US its 18, obviously the US people think paraguans are immoral, and paraguans probably think the US are immoral child killing imperalists. NOONE IS RIGHT BECAUSE ITS RELATIVE.

and the reason it will STAY relative is because there is no world government to ENFORCE a universal morality on every country in the world.

[sv]

jeez seb you talk about moral relativism like its some kind of moral absolute.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Sgt Seb

NOONE IS RIGHT BECAUSE ITS RELATIVE.

One thing I learned from my ethics class is that moral relativism is complate and utter BS. It does not stand up under logical analysis therefore your argument is invalid.

[Sgt Seb]

i havent taken any ethics classes im just thinking realistically.

try and refute the cultural examples i gave

you cant - and that my point my communist friend

[ZuldaN]

Originally Posted by PsyK

Uh, that's not conservative man. At all.

fucking hippie :P

Ya I don't think he understands what politically conservative means as opposed to frugally conservative.

[?>Superman]

If this thread was a 14 yr old chick i'd take her to paraguay and sodomize it.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

One thing I learned from my ethics class is that moral relativism is complate and utter BS. It does not stand up under logical analysis therefore your argument is invalid.

I did that, years ago.

It's strange, your arguments to date would suggest to me that you're a relativist.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Sgt Seb

i havent taken any ethics classes im just thinking realistically.

try and refute the cultural examples i gave

you cant - and that my point my communist friend

The only 'cultural' argument you gave was that of the age of consent which is different in many countries. Sometimes it's even traditional but, IMO,not a very good moral compass. It really doesn't show if the country has a strong moral makeup but only the age when it considers a person old enough to make their own decisions.

There are several aspects of cultures that are common: Honesty, rules against thievery, and unprovoked violence, etc. These are common because any society would fail without them.

The acts of the US have been dishonest (manipulated intel prior to invading Iraq), pure theivery in some cases (billions missing from Iraq) and almost always consist of unprovoked violence (Nicuragua, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, etc). These are considered immoral in every society in the world including western society. All societies will react differently to these crimes but they are crimes throughout the world.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Theft isnt immoral in every society all the time. That's just silly.

But regardless. Morality of the invidual is drastically different to morality of the state.

I doubt if the intel was 'manipulated'. I think it more likely they received bad intel and were too eager to act upon it. If it was manipulated, I would consider it a relatively easy thing for them to fashion a discovery of a huge stockpile of WMD's.

You talking about the 12billion?

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

Theft isnt immoral in every society all the time. That's just silly.

Yes it is and no, it's not. Believing so is though.

But regardless. Morality of the invidual is drastically different to morality of the state.

The state, if anything, must act with greater moral oversight than the individual.

I doubt if the intel was 'manipulated'. I think it more likely they received bad intel and were too eager to act upon it. If it was manipulated, I would consider it a relatively easy thing for them to fashion a discovery of a huge stockpile of WMD's.

They manipulated the intel via the special intel office in the White House. This is all very well documented.

You talking about the 12billion?

8 or 12 - the US government gave it away and then didn't bother investigating to see if there was any criminal actions involved after they realised that they hadn't actually got anything for it.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

The state, if anything, must act with greater moral oversight than the individual.

Yes, but the state has to make choices which the individual would never be presented with. Many of these choices would be considered immoral by the individual. Yet cannot be considered anything other than moral by the state. Morality of the invidual is different to morality of the state. It must be. It cannot work any other way.

Morals are shaky things when all perspectives have been accounted for. I don't think they really have much immediate benefit when trying to observe 'the WORLDz0r!'. They just confuse the issue, most of the time. They bog one down in filthy dirty, teenage idealism, without helping us understand the why of things.

It is much better to understand the right of power.

They manipulated the intel via the special intel office in the White House. This is all very well documented.

It's not quite so clear cut in reality.

8 or 12 - the US government gave it away and then didn't bother investigating to see if there was any criminal actions involved after they realised that they hadn't actually got anything for it.

Right, but who do you think did the dirty?

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

Yes, but the state has to make choices which the individual would never be presented with. Many of these choices would be considered immoral by the individual. Yet cannot be considered anything other than moral by the state. Morality of the invidual is different to morality of the state. It must be. It cannot work any other way.

In some cases - sure, such as tarrifs, self-defense (excluding pre-emptive which come under unprovoked violence) etc, the state will be making difficult decisions but they generally won't be immoral although they may not benefit those outside of that nation. But lying, cheating, unprovoked violence etc. aren't some of those choices. In these cases the decision both by the state and by the individual should be to act morally. If a state believes that it can act immorally then that state has become a rogue state and a danger to mankind.

Morals are shaky things when all perspectives have been accounted for. I don't think they really have much immediate benefit when trying to observe 'the WORLDz0r!'. They just confuse the issue, most of the time. They bog one down in filthy dirty, teenage idealism, without helping us understand the why of things.

No, if all perspectives are considered and given equal weight by all concerned then it is more than likely that a moral decision will be forthcoming.

It is much better to understand the right of power.

There is no right of power. Just because I can go down the road and beat up some school kid doesn't give me the right to. Just because the US can beat up pretty much any other country doesn't give it the right to.

It's not quite so clear cut in reality.

Yes, it really is. The CIA said that there were no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. They said there was no WMD. The Bush administration then put together their office of special plans (IIRC) which, using exactly the same information but no trained intelligence operatives but plenty of Bush flunkies, said there was.

Right, but who do you think did the dirty?

Paul Bremer who signed all of those contracts off but I suppose we'll never know due to the lack of oversight.

[Tranquil^]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

There is no right of power. Just because I can go down the road and beat up some school kid doesn't give me the right to. Just because the US can beat up pretty much any other country doesn't give it the right to.

Yes it does, you CHOOSE not to bash the shit out of that Asian school kid who drives a EvoIX because in your opinion (even tho he deserves it, fucking rich gook), the risk out weighs any reward, as you will goto Jail.
The US has every right to bash dune coons, because according to its rational, is in its interest to do so. The US answers to no one, not even god.
Under these conditions the righteous are those with the biggest stick, be it a femur from a dead prey animal or a ballistic missile submarine.

Obviously this is not a good situation for mankind as a whole, and is PRECISLY the reason why the current tight rope of strategic affairs needs to be trod upon with extreme caution. The next 100 year's will probably decide the fate of mankind. Somehow we got through the biblical 'Judgement' otherwise known as the threat of of nuclear Armageddon.. The next test is how we cope in our new found 'paradise'.

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

The only 'cultural' argument you gave was that of the age of consent which is different in many countries. Sometimes it's even traditional but, IMO,not a very good moral compass. It really doesn't show if the country has a strong moral makeup but only the age when it considers a person old enough to make their own decisions.

There are several aspects of cultures that are common: Honesty, rules against thievery, and unprovoked violence, etc. These are common because any society would fail without them.

come back to my nazi example.

if hitler believed, as he did, that slavs and jews were inferior, and even, 'an enemy to mankind', which he also did, then surely to himself, and his millions of followers, it was a moral action to exterminate them.

or the crusades. to the christians, it was completely moral to kill muslims, including woman and children for their beliefs.

history is littered with examples like these that show states taking actions against other states that it believes are moral, but which ultimately are decided not by an objective moral compass like you seem to think exists, but by the victor.

i get your point re: common cultural aspects of morality, the problem is, morality is simply a facade unless immoral behaviour can somehow be punished. otherwise each state will simply bend its own moral compass to its own national interests (there u go superman).

The acts of the US have been dishonest (manipulated intel prior to invading Iraq), pure theivery in some cases (billions missing from Iraq) and almost always consist of unprovoked violence (Nicuragua, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, etc). These are considered immoral in every society in the world including western society. All societies will react differently to these crimes but they are crimes throughout the world.

ok i see the link you are trying to make. the problem is, to rumsfeld, cheney, bush and so on, these actions are not immoral. they believe, whether you agree with them or not, that the US is the force of good in this world, and that democracy must be spread by force. the ends justify the means, and hence manipulating intelligence (which i agree they DID do) was okay, because the end result would better for mankind in the long run.

seee how easy it is to manipulate morality to serve your own ends?

thats what your problem is with defining international relations in moral terms, it distorts the reality, which is power. power is how internatational relations is best explained and predicted..

[chubby]

power is how internatational relations is best explained and predicted..

and theres the problem, you make it sound like you mean JUSTIFIED- not explained.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

But lying, cheating, unprovoked violence etc. aren't some of those choices. In these cases the decision both by the state and by the individual should be to act morally. If a state believes that it can act immorally then that state has become a rogue state and a danger to mankind.

Perhaps the US considers securing a supply of oil for it's citizens, so it may continue to advance socially, economically and technologically - providing what it sees as large utility to the world, as a moral obligation.

You gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.

No, if all perspectives are considered and given equal weight by all concerned then it is more than likely that a moral decision will be forthcoming.

But all perspectives are not equal. Just as all opinions are not worthwhile, valid or interesting. They may have a right to be, but existence does not lend something an inherent value.

There is no right of power. Just because I can go down the road and beat up some school kid doesn't give me the right to. Just because the US can beat up pretty much any other country doesn't give it the right to.

Perhaps at some point in the future, through I'm sure, hard work by yourself and those likeminded, there may come a point where this would be true. Since we ain't in those times, and for all of human history the right of power has existed, I cant see this changing any time soon.

It may not be moral, as you define the word. Woe to the vanquished, conquered we conquer, etc.