bush's humility (1 Viewer)

[thejosiekiller]

ah i thought it was a general question on what sovereignty was in relation to the iraq war........

 

[hiphophorray123]

he was asked a question on tribal sovereignty (i believe refering to native american communities wanting self-governance) he got muddled up...

u mean the right to self-determination

which also a big aspect of self-determination is that every state has EQUAL power in the united nations, bush thinks america has the most power and can go against the UN....face it his out of control, this can only lead to disaster...and since america is one of the main players in the global econonmy...the worlds in for disaster

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i only saw that little part of the question.....
The US DOES have more power, in a commercial world the world's largest commercial power is going to be the most powerful nation even if they don't have a powerful military....

Do you think the UN thinks each state has equal power? some have veto power and others don't... would you rather it be a vote where each state gets their vote equally counted? what you're proposing wouldn't work....

and since america is one of the main players in the global econonmy...the worlds in for disaster

America has been the main player in the global economy since the end of ww2, and even before that they were a very powerful country... Why not point that asian economies being some of the biggest players in the global economy that the world's in for disaster? Remember the asian crisis?

 

[hiphophorray123]

its what the legal studies textbook proposes not me, i was just studying human rights (bloody exams) and yeah asians are stupi...floating the dollar pfft

 

[Lorie]

Silly Bush, he will show compassion only when it suits his polical agenda. He was like.....god vless his soul, when he thought that arafat died. Where did he get his sources from cnn?....

WHen castro fell over and broke his leg (god damn that was funny) the US governement didn't take any sympathy for him by saying it doesn't compare with the tradgey that his people are going through. Hmmmm, sounds a bit silly doens't it.

Stupid bush.............where can i get some tang here??

yuuummmmm Tang.

 

[Monkey Butler]

I think Bush's attitude towards foreign policy is pretty well summed up in his failure to think of a single mistake that he's made since September 11. I can think of several off the top of my head, but it just doesn't seem to compute with him that he's made very very big mistakes.

And Not-That-Bright, surely the US, as the most economically powerful (for the time being) state on earth, has a moral obligation to seek world peace, which includes following the UN, not whinging when its desires aren't agreed to or condemning it as irrelevant

 

[Not-That-Bright]

do you honestly think they're not working towards world peace? the problem arises when their idea of how to achieve it is challenged by other people... why should THEY do what other nations smaller than them say?

 

[hiphophorray123]

do you honestly think they're not working towards world peace? the problem arises when their idea of how to achieve it is challenged by other people... why should THEY do what other nations smaller than them say?

coz even though they are small, they are still nations...with an apparant equal say

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't believe they should have an equal say...
why should burkina faso have the same power as the us?

 

[hiphophorray123]

thats like saying another human being doesn't have the same rights as a stronger human being....there still human beings....and the nations are still nations

 

[Monkey Butler]

do you honestly think they're not working towards world peace? the problem arises when their idea of how to achieve it is challenged by other people... why should THEY do what other nations smaller than them say?

Yes, I honestly believe that. By saying "you're either with us, or with the terrorists", Bush has completely split the world. Factionalism will NEVER lead to peace.
To get all Legal Studies, there are two forms of World Peace - one is a simple lack of hostilities (which is pretty pointless, because it's only ever a superficial peace. This is what America seems to be pushing for) and the second is an actual goodwill between all nations. Now the second option may be a LOT more hard to accomplish (if not impossible) but without it as a goal, what's the point of international law?

I'm a firm believer in the need for forward thinking in government (which is why I think Australia is pretty much boned, what with the environment and the health and the education getting fucked over on pretty much all levels of government), because without a plan for future generations, what's the point of government? It's kind of a philosophical argument I guess - what's the point of just living day to day when you could be putting in place systems that will benefit our nation in the long term? This is also applicable on the international level, and it's exactly what Bush is NOT doing.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

he has tried, but because people like you simply disagree with him on things such as the roadmap to peace he cannot.

Also, i believe it's basically impossible now for america to end the violence... It's impossible to go into a country in the middle east, occupy it, have heaps of civlian casualties and still expect to create peace.. for every day that they're there they kill, piss off civilians there this in turn also pisses off the rest of the middle east.

The only way to achieve the longer term peace is to first have no violence, and then to work together... HOWEVER i believe peace is another thing that's of perspective... to some people their world peace would be the destruction of america and the establishment of a muslim world state, to some people peace would be them and their family having no problems while other people work for low pay etc...

I believe america has been furthering the quality of peoples lives for some time now, perhaps not the government but the country its self.

 

[hiphophorray123]

Also, i believe it's basically impossible now for america to end the violence... It's impossible to go into a country in the middle east, occupy it, have heaps of civlian casualties and still expect to create peace.. for every day that they're there they kill, piss off civilians there this in turn also pisses off the rest of the middle east.

.

which is what has happened because of bush

 

[Monkey Butler]

Hey, I wouldn't "simply disagree" with anything Bush said, and nowhere have I mentioned the roadmap to peace. The fact is that America's isolationsit policies, as well as its militaristic foreign policy, WILL NOT lead to a workable peace. Maybe it has something to do with their policy of, what were your words, "going into a country in the middle east, occupy it, have heaps of civlian casualties"... There is, in 99% of cases (the other 1% is for another Nazi Germany, although that's very unlikely to happen), a way to solve a conflict without invasion and occupation.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

East timor, afghanistan needed occupation i think you'd agree...

But I agree with you, the war in iraq has really fucked up any chances for peace HOWEVER i think the first thing that started this was the 9/11 attacks.. of course america should have been a little smarter about this and just kept to afghanistan.. .waited untill that country was stable then looked for other possible dangers only using force if it's absoblutely necessary.

The only way the US will end this war is if it can get arab countries on its side, it hasn't been able to as yet...

 

[Monkey Butler]

East Timor wasn't occupied, and definitely not by the US. UN Peace Keepers were sent in to ensure that the independence ballot was run fairly, and to ensure that Indonesia moved out of the country after the vote. See how effective the UN can be, and just how easily it can be fucked up by idiot, self-serving countries (Australia with the oil and gas mines, leaving ET basically penniless)

Afghanistan is a bit dicey, because the situation with the Taliban was only created because of the US. They were helped by the US to fight Russia in the 80s, and so I don't think it's an entirely valid example. Certainly what the Taliban were doing to the Afghani people was wrong, but it could've been handled much better without invading the country, if the US allowed the UN to get involved, rather than simply seeking revenge for 9/11 (yep, that's what Bush called it).

And the Iraq war had nothing to do with Spetember 11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, Hussein didn't have WMDs, and he didn't make any aggressive move against the US. That's the real clincher in terms of peace, the arrogance of the US in flaunting international law for what it perceives to be the right thing, and the idiocy with which they go about getting what they want.

And it shouldn't be a matter of getting people "on side", it should be a matter of coming to an agreement that will lead to peace. Getting people on side presupposes that our point of view is the right one, and the one that everyone should follow. It's not.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Australia ran the entire operation in East timor and it was a resounding success...
Yea but that's the way it was, some people saw it one way.. others another way... there was not going to be an agreement.

 

[Monkey Butler]

Australia ran the entire operation in East timor and it was a resounding success...

That wasn't my point (and the success of the operation wasn't really due to Australia, it was due to Indonesia actually following through). The point is that it was a UN operation that didn't seek to occupy the country, but rather to assist it in becoming independent.

 

[neo o]

its what the legal studies textbook proposes not me, i was just studying human rights (bloody exams) and yeah asians are stupi...floating the dollar pfft

Please justify why floating the dollar is a "stupid mistake", especially considering the context of the '97 crisis.

thats like saying another human being doesn't have the same rights as a stronger human being....there still human beings....and the nations are still nations

1) One human being does not have the same rights as another human being. Are you pro-abortion, just out of curiosity?

2) While this argument is irrelevant, since you want to consider this in the context of one human being vs. another, who should have a greater say. The government of a nation with 300 million people, the US or 2 million people, Burkina Faso?

 

[hiphophorray123]

Please justify why floating the dollar is a "stupid mistake", especially considering the context of the '97 crisis.



1) One human being does not have the same rights as a human being.

2) While this argument is irrelevant, since you want to consider this in the context of one human being vs. another, who should have a greater say. The government of a nation with 300 million people, the US or 2 million people, Burkina Faso?

well from what i remember, the asian crisis occured from i think raising (might of been lowering) the national currency's value, then all this shit happened and they had the asian financial crisis

there still people....and are you familiar with the universality of human rights...they are shared by everybody, no one has more rights than the other, no one has less rights than the other, no matter what age, race etc as long as they are human..