This was a topic a couple of years ago. I did some research and found that at it's peak only about 7% of Georgia residents were ever slave owners. Why limit the discussion to Western Powers? I didn't. Why limit the discussion to industrialized nations? I didn't. You can shape the argument that way if you wish, but it doesn't really disprove my point does it? In that instance, I would have been rooting for the British to intercept those ships.
For much of the Cold War, the UN WAS irrelevant. It's a place to talk and to embarass your opponents, but not much more. The 1990's served as a test of the UN as the major peacekeeper on earth. The result: miserable failure with the death of literally millions. For a bureaucratic organization, that's enough grief imo. In fact the only successes the UN had all had one thing in common: American backing. The problem of the UN is that it tries to fulfill the new role of a hegemon (the peacekeeper) when its organization remained arcane and chaotic. When the UN fails, the US cannot escape its natural role as the hegemon. ps. "Global majority" of governments (or rather, of governmental representatives) is usually slow and too often wrong.
Even when the brits are ending the slave TRADE, they didn't abolish slavery until well into the 19th century, especially in their colonies.
Not quote, but close. I am saying that, in agreement with the progress we have made in international relations, we should not do what we feel is right , ( in other countries, in an act of comission) unless the global majority agrees. I say this in full recognition of the fact that this stance will quite possibly not allow us to do osome 'right' things...But the cost of doing 'wrong ' ones is much harder to bear...It turns back the clock, and brings us back to thr Might id Right age we all thought we had left behind. Imagine, if you will, the US response to Turkey deciding to invade Iraq for what it considers just cause...How do we oppose them, having ourselves opposed the will of the world? We can't say to them that " You cannot do this thing because the world community says you are wrong.", but have regressed so far back in time that we are saying " You cannot do this things because the guy with the most guns says you are wrong." This takes us back to where the UN began...recovering from an horrific war which was the result of the greatest military power in the region deciding to do what it felt was right merely because it had the might to do so...Generations destroyed at the Alter of Might is Right later, we found a better way,,a wiser way...an inperfect way, yes, but certainly a step up from the idea othose with the most militarty might rules.
They would be the only comparables...They were our ontemporaries at the time, and those who would, in the situation outlined, have been the ones to invade the US because of our human rights atrocities ata time when all ofhe rest of them sawit as barbaric.
Panda, What you say might very well be true. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the Americans "invaded" themselves first before anybody had come up with the invasion idea. MacBeth, I don't have time to read you "column" yet. Looking forward to. I just skimmed down to see what the responses are.
Rwanda happened in a month. The UN can't even order pizza in a month. The world majority was for Munich in 1938. You do the right thing, and expect others to do the right thing as well. If they don't, it is even more vital that you do the right thing.
Your long post reminds me what my Latin prof told us about Cicero : If you need so many words and such colorful rhetoric to dress your point up, you must not like it naked . Well-written, nonetheless. I wonder what your arguements would mean to that Iraqi being fed into the plastic shredder? Or his wife, after her rape? I will readily admit I am a hawk, and support an activist foreign policy. There are times I feel it in our national interest, and times I feel it our national duty to take forceful action. I find it hard to argue for inaction when we have the resources, the interest and the will to end horror and bring relief. I don't think the military is an option of last resort by any means - it's a national strength, and I prefer to put my resources to use. I don't think it's good policy to sit on your hands and wait for invasion. We are the superpower - with great power comes great responsibility. We have more than ample interest and compunction to "remove" Saddam, and it is our duty to try and reshape the region for the better.
This is exactlyy the type of post I was hoping to not see in here...I could respond by saying what would the parentsof the boy who died of head wounds suffered during an American bombing say to yours? I could state that my own emotion should my loved one suffer at the hands of a rapists or killer, would be to want to kill him...but that doesn't justufy capital punishment. Emotinal reactions to intelligent discussion are almost never worth considering, as we can't, shouldn't , and God hopes, aren't basing our decisions about this war on an emotional reaction. Ify ou see what I mean, I will respond to the rest of your valid post.
After Hitler, there would be no more fire-bombing of German cities. To leave him in power, he would put more and more people in concentration camps. To leave Saddam in power, a continuing stream of people would be fed into the shredder. The two types of deaths are both undesirable, but they are not equivalent.
I don' t think the rest of the world saw the practice as barbaric as you want to think they did. Other nations allowed slavery. As sinohero has asserted even the Brits allowed slavery in colonies under their control.
My exact point ...the world opposed the most powerful nation. The wrold was in agreement, so it was defensible, and the UN was set up so that the most powerful country in particluar, or any country in general couldn't dictate to the world what it had to do, or tell other nations what to do if the world disagreed. We now stand as that nation...what we do now will say something about the UN, certailny, but a lot more about us.
dude, you missed my point by a mile. I was defending pasox' opinion and pointing to you that a dissident's death under Saddam has differences with death from an errant US bomb. The Third Reich has nothing on the US right now. We ARE a hegemon, they dreamt they were. Being a hegemon and telling other nations what to do are not inherently evil actions.
I have to go to sleep now, as I'm up early...Please everyone who agrees/disagrees with my positions make your comments and arguments.I would love to hear them...from both sides. But please, I beg you, don't bring the up to now high levelof this thread, even in disagreement, down to the level of calling out the 'anti-American' card, etc...Let's argue this on the issues, whichever side we're on..I am hoping that some who agree with me on this will get involved, and am looking forward to Hayes and others who disagree's perspectives...BobFinn*, Batman, treeman, Mango, Cohen, and all the rest...please respond. I appreciate that those posting in this thread have so far been extremely coureteous and tried to keep this an argument of resoning rather than an emotional fight with name calling, labelling, etc. I really, really do.
..and were given the time to do so...It took a couple of hundred years...How long has Saddam been doing his thing?
Am under the influence of sleeping pills right now, so it is possible I mised your point..will read again tomorrow...night one and all PEACE JAG
But is war an option then? Is it better to fight for human freedom than tolerating atrocities in the name of "peace"?
Could you elaborate on this part, using a couple of majors wars as a justification for the statement: "and almost without exception every significant 'expert', from Sun Tzu through Clausevitz up to the present day states that most wars have been unnecessary, fought improperly, and have almost universally been at the cost of the many for the benefit of the few." The statement seems pretty general to me. With your extensive background in the area, can you come up with a scenario in which a war is necessary, fought properly, and benefited many at the cost of a few? Essentially, an ideal war. While the saying "History repeats itself is often true", I think that its often easy to criticize after the fact. War and other major events are dynamic, often negating, or at least explaining the "fought properly" point. I agree with the "Saddam is a tyrant" as justification with why we are at war. I find it hard to believe that the resulting regime change won't benefit many. Granted, there may be a significant cost, but I still think that benefits outweigh costs. I clearly agree with your points 1, 2, and 4. Point 5, "Might is Right, I can somewhat see as a justification for war. Call me a traitor for seeking power, wealth, and security, but i seek these ideals not just for myself or my country, but for a majority of people worldwide. Maybe Pax Americana would be the first empire that "succeeds" in bettering peoples lives worldwide. I'm sure that you can quote historic evidence of all other empires inherent evilness. I can't, but I do think that if an upcoming empire will prevent people from being thrown into plastic shredders then it might be worth a shot. Also, what wars do you think were worth fighting, if any? Well written post.
