It's time.
POSTED BY: Jonus
UPDATED: Monday, March 27, 2006 00:25
VIEWED: 15488
PAGE 13 of 14
Sorry I'm late on this...
If a movie has to convince you of these things, you're probably not "what the prophecies are looking for", if you know what I mean.
V for Vendetta wasn't a depiction of current events; it was an example of what could happen down the line. Sorry you missed that point.
"I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
-Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I actually agree with Fletch.
*He looks about as the temperature drops. Ice crystles proliferate. Fires die out. Molecular motion slows.
Lucifer wonders what could have happened on Earth.*
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We don’t have the resources to engage every country that is a threat to the US, and war is a limited solution anyway, but I do agree that the real final solution needs more, much more, then the US/UK can provide. This is a job for the UN and the world as a whole, but they don’t seem interested. There’s no doubt that the Iranians and the North Koreans and the Chinese view the US and the UK as some kind of threat. And there’s no doubt that this isn’t a perfect solution. But advocating to our adversaries the serious intent to defend our national security and that of our allies with credible military strength and a willingness to pre-emptive response when deemed necassary has been successfully used as a deterrent for most of military history. But there is a limit to how much credibility the US and the UK can offer the UN, if the UN will not take measures to enforce its own laws.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, please...by that reasoning, we should pre-emptivly strike at Korea, Iran, China, etc.
I recently heard that the 'phantom' WMD's, as I called them, were moved into Syria just before our invasion if Iraq, what little there were. This would blow a big hole in my "Bush lied about WMD's" routine, but it also changes very little else. I mean we have our own WMD's, and could be seen as an imminent threat to Saddam, so why didn't he pre-emptivly attack us? (911 was not Saddam, in case you were gonna cite that)
Why am I not allowed by law to punch someone who I believe is gonna hit me in the next few days?
Pre-emptive Chrisisall
This is not anything new; this is the way sovereignty has been secured for 5000 years. I was once lulled into the wishful fantasy that the UN changed things, but I could no longer continue to believe that after the UN issued 16 enforceable Resolutions against Iraq that no one had any interest in enforcing, because of a culture of complacency and what historians are referring to as "Olympianism," and as it now appears leading UN member states had been effectively bought off by Hussein. As a result, there are people who believe (Bush and Blair, among them) that the UN is essentially irrelevant as a world leader without the US and UK to legitimize its authority with credible military force; and I find it hard to disagree with them. No country will follow a world leader who is paralyzed with indecision, and incapable of securing its own laws, and if the UN (and its subsidiaries, such as the World Court) is to become this World Leader it will need more then just pieces of paper stamped with “UN Resolution.” I still believe that the UN can become an international arbiter of peace, but it was naïve of me to believe that it could ever have done so without credible military force behind it.
So to get to your analogy: it’s the equivalent to enforcing laws against murder with a stern rebuke, instead of jail. If you lived in a world where laws against murder were not enforced, then you might be inclined to punch someone, maybe even kill them, if you had reason to believe they might do the same to you or your family in a few days.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you saying that the World Court and UN have sort of let the world go in a lawless direction, and that the U.S. was pushed into 'punching' Saddam, like a kid defending himself on a playground the teachers have no ability to control?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So to get to your analogy: it’s the equivalent to enforcing laws against murder with a stern rebuke, instead of jail.
Or that we should have taken him out during/after the Gulf War?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We don’t have the resources to engage every country that is a threat to the US, and war is a limited solution anyway, but I do agree that the real final solution needs more, much more, then the US/UK can provide. This is a job for the UN and the world as a whole, but they don’t seem interested. There’s no doubt that the Iranians and the North Koreans and the Chinese view the US and the UK as some kind of threat. And there’s no doubt that this isn’t a perfect solution. But advocating to our adversaries the serious intent to defend our national security and that of our allies with credible military strength and a willingness to pre-emptive response when deemed necassary has been successfully used as a deterrent for most of military history. But there is a limit to how much credibility the US and the UK can offer the UN, if the UN will not take measures to enforce its own laws.
This is not anything new; this is the way sovereignty has been secured for 5000 years. I was once lulled into the wishful fantasy that the UN changed things, but I could no longer continue to believe that after the UN issued 16 enforceable Resolutions against Iraq that no one had any interest in enforcing, because of a culture of complacency and what historians are referring to as "Olympianism," and as it now appears leading UN member states had been effectively bought off by Hussein. As a result, there are people who believe (Bush and Blair, among them) that the UN is essentially irrelevant as a world leader without the US and UK to legitimize its authority with credible military force; and I find it hard to disagree with them. No country will follow a world leader who is paralyzed with indecision, and incapable of securing its own laws, and if the UN (and its subsidiaries, such as the World Court) is to become this World Leader it will need more then just pieces of paper stamped with “UN Resolution.” I still believe that the UN can become an international arbiter of peace, but it was naïve of me to believe that it could ever have done so without credible military force behind it.
So to get to your analogy: it’s the equivalent to enforcing laws against murder with a stern rebuke, instead of jail. If you lived in a world where laws against murder were not enforced, then you might be inclined to punch someone, maybe even kill them, if you had reason to believe they might do the same to you or your family in a few days.
This is true, especially when two of the main members of the UN don't follow the laws. How can we expect other nations to 'kowtow' to UN judgement when UN founders couldn't give a toss.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do as I say, not as I do.
Originally posted by citizen:
two of the main members of the UN don't follow the laws.
Laws are for the little people.
Leprechaun Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All nations are sovereign. But some nations are more sovereign than others.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And we will protect our sovereignty with THESE!!!
Come an' git it, Third World!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But does our sovereignty deserve to be protected?
CitizenIsAdama
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From toasters? Frak yes.
Originally posted by citizen:
But does our sovereignty deserve to be protected?
CitizenIsAdama
ChrisisApollo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME