|
Post by Sakura26 on Dec 22, 2004 17:28:50 GMT -3
Hello Everybody! First, I would like to add my good wishes for this christmas to be great and for all of us to have a great 2005 with a nice argentinean flag flying in the Falklands (it was a joke, don't hate me ) Hutch So you only respect those countries who are powerfull militarily strong and growing in economic strengh? I thougt that was called discrimiation and was a sin the UK didnt have..... d**n you're humans too after all.... Ernie: If we remove that clause from the constitution, then you'll be coming here saying that by dropping the claim we already accepted the islands dont belong to us. That'¡s tricky, it's been studied and it's not gonna happen..... It seems to be illegal for you another solution than the argentinean surrender as well, so, after a whole year of discussions, we're right at the beginning.... Best Wishes Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Dec 23, 2004 0:58:18 GMT -3
Hutch,
First, happy holidays and a better new year. About your question, the answer is yes. Not because I would like people with glasses to be shot, but because you do not have the means or the know-how to save them. The world would do nothing anyway. It is Wall Street who comes to the "rescue". Your democratization crusade could cost Argentina 100 years of suffering. Just look at what's happening in Cuba. Do you think the embargo really punishes Fidel? The Cuban people are the ones who suffer. One of the "strategic" targets of the 91 war in Iraq was a water purification plant. Did Saddam look sick to you? Do you care to know how many innocent lives were lost because of this measure? Your answer to the cure of a disease is always a machine gun. No, thank you. I prefer to live with the disease a little longer. It's not because I don't believe a cure should be found, but because you have no bussiness playing doctor, particularly against the wishes of the patient.
Regards,
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Dec 23, 2004 3:36:31 GMT -3
Hello Hutch: I am not a specialist, but let us read again what you wrote: <b>Let me ask you straight out Otto-would you let the gas chambers/death camps/extermination keep running in Nazi Germany? Would you ignore the gassing of Halabja by Saddam? Would you ignore the Serb militarys actions in Kosovo? Or the actions of various sides in the Balkans in the early 1990's? Would you think that the suffering of Tibetans is none of your business? Do you ignore what the Janjaweed Militia are doing in the Sudan. Would you ignore Mussolini using Mustard Gas in Abyssinia? Would you want the world to ignore it if the military took over in Argentina tomorrow and started shooting everyone who wore glasses? Because these will/would all be ignored if someone else didnt/doesent/should have stood up and said-'This is wrong. It is clearly and plainly wrong and i will try to stop it, using violence if i have to'. </b> And now lets us take a look on a fallacy lesson, which is available in the internet at www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htmThere you may read: <I>Slippery Slope Definition: In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator. Examples: (i) If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons. (ii) You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings. (iii) If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.</I> So, Hutch, it easy to identify your reasoning as unacceptable. Of course you did not stated the gas chambers as a reason to war, just a reason to interfere, but that cleared the way to justify interfering at will, anywhere your might allows you to. Now to your question: <b>Forget Iraq, et al, for the moment and see if you can answer my question "Would you want the world to ignore it if the military took over in Argentina tomorrow and started shooting everyone who wore glasses?" for thats the crux of my argument i suppose.</b> Aside that all Latin American dictatorships had a drive from abroad, which you never refer to, your question is clearly a joke. Where was UK, then, when the “desaparecidos” happened? Why UK did not act? Why acting just when there is a vital resource in question? UK made good business with these dictatorships, closing an eye to any wrongdoing. Now, out of a strong morale principle, you feel that there is some divine right interfering with other nations, no? As for the utopist world justice court that you remembered UN, let me refresh your memory that there was no mandate from this entity to invade Iraq. And you did. And it was based on a lie. Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Dec 29, 2004 11:44:56 GMT -3
Hope everybody had a good Christmas. Mainly family for me and I expect the same for others.
Noelia
"So you only respect those countries who are powerfull militarily strong and growing in economic strengh"
Well its a good starting point isnt it? For a nation which wants to survive and prosper. 30 years ago China was a joke-now its an emergent superpower and is gaining more respect both regionally and internationally. Why do people not respect many African nations but do respect others? Power and wealth. If Argentina was powerful, wealthy and politically stable you'd have a far stronger hand when it comes to the Falklands.
"I thougt that was called discrimiation and was a sin the UK didnt have.."
Nope, i'm afraid youre falling into Javiers trap there. Assigning the UK morals, principles, etc, yourself and then accusing us of breaking them. Of course the UK discriminates-between friend and foe, those like us and those not, those whose opinions are like ours and those whoses are hatefull to us, those who are strong and those who are weak and so on. Nations do it to survive and its a part of their cultural makeup.
"If we remove that clause from the constitution, then you'll be coming here saying that by dropping the claim we already accepted the islands dont belong to us. That'¡s tricky, it's been studied and it's not gonna happen..... It seems to be illegal for you another solution than the argentinean surrender as well, so, after a whole year of discussions, we're right at the beginning...."
It depends how its done really doesent it? If the Clause was suddenly dropped then yes it could be seen as a 'victory' for the FI/UK. However, if Argentina amended the Clause as part of a synchronised process to solve the dispute then it would work in Argentinas favour. See the issue of Ulster and the Irish Constitution for a rough example.
It is Argentina who has made solutions other than total surrender 'illegal' and they have done that all on their own. For example, if the UK came to Argentina tomorrow and said
"We are prepared to do a deal. To wit: the Argentine flag shall fly on the FI, it shall have a joint Anglo-Spanish name, it shall be ruled by a council of Islanders, Argentine and UK representatives, the UK military will withdraw fully, the Islanders shall have dual nationality, Argentina shall provide military protection, Argentinians can settle of the Islands, the infrastructure shall be upgraded at the UKs expense and soverignty shall be considered shared and ratified in a formal treaty for a period of 99 years after which it may pass fully to Argentina, unless the Islanders raise serious objections and three quarters of them vote against it in a referendum"
Then Argentina would have to refure the deal as it would be illegal under its Constitution. Will argentina continue to hide behind its Constitution or will it have the courage to seriouly attempt to resolve the situation? Because at the moment, everytime Argentina says that it its willing to and wants negotiations it is a lie. It can not negotiate, it can only demand.
Gabriel.
Thanks for the answer. So you agree with the basic proposition then, that external/foreign military intervention would be acceptable under certain circumstances? Now i'm not saying that all else flows from there but it is a start as it illustrates that the concept is not alien or hateful to you. Your caveats are neither here nor there but an attempt to sqaure your desire for self/fellow countrymen preservation with your opposition to the Iraq war/importance of national soverignty/etc. Changing the subject as well does the same. Who mentioned Cuba?
"Your answer to the cure of a disease is always a machine gun"
When the disease is worse than the cure then yes, the machine gun it is. How else would the tyrants of the world be toppled? Flowers? Speeches? And yes, i fully realize that to some we (USA/UK/The West/the infidel/others) are the tyrants who should be toppled. But once again we come back to a fundamental question-do you personally believe that Saddam Hussein and his clan should still be in power in Iraq? I don't and im glad they are gone, their time is over. Iraq bleeds now but it is free of its largest domestic parasite.
"No, thank you. I prefer to live with the disease a little longer."
Would you be happy if the Junta were still in power in Argentina then? With foreign support of course.
Maquilishuat.
Lovely argument but im not actually presenting a 'slippery slope' argument. For example i didnt say something like-
"(ii) You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings."
I asked a series of seperate questions in one paragraph all of which were essentially as worse as each other. If i had said something like-
'Rape is a terrible crime. Prison doesent dissuade rapists. If we burn rapists at the stake in the town square then there would be no more or at least far fewer rapists, therefore to oppose burning rapists puts you on their side.'
Then it would be a slippery slope argument. But i didnt ask a slippery slope question. In the end i specifically asked one question-
"Would you want the world to ignore it if the military took over in Argentina tomorrow and started shooting everyone who wore glasses?"
Which you didnt answer. You used distraction and straw man methods to avoid answering it.
"Of course you did not stated the gas chambers as a reason to war, just a reason to interfere..."
No, the gas chambers did not start working until the war was more than a year old, possibly two or more. It was gas vans to start with. But we couldnt have used them as an excuse to 'intefere' as they appeared long after the war began and were disbelieved as being too monstrously unimaginable when they were first heard of.
I did not refer to the foreign support for Latin American dictatorships because that was not what i was asking. It had nothing to do with the question as it was a hypothetical one based on something happening in the future. I believe i may have mentioned several tinmes the fact that the US/UK/et al supported dictatorships and other unsavoury regimes out of (perceived) neccessity in the past, but maybe i havent.
The question is a bit of a joke, yes. Its a rhetorical moral question. And then you return to distraction instead of answering the question or saying why you cant answer it. Why did the UK not act against the military rulers of S.America? Because you were our allies against a far greater enemy-the Communists, thats why. I really thought i'd made this clear before, our support of brutal regimes.
"Now, out of a strong morale principle, you feel that there is some divine right interfering with other nations, no?"
Not a divine right, but in certain circumstances, yes. Do you want Saddam still in power as well? Can you answer my question yes or no? It is a stand alone question. If you can't then dont worry.
All the best to all, have a good New Years.
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Dec 29, 2004 14:58:23 GMT -3
Hello Everybody
I too hope you had a great christmas and get my best wishes for this 2005 about to start. I'm leaving on vacations on february 9th and although I'm travelling with my computer I dont know if I'll find the way to get an internet connection, so I dont know if I'll be coming here until february 8th or 9th.
Hutch:
This kind of thinking is what lead countries to war. It’s the most stupid concept you could have said in a peace-meant forum. Nothing more to discuss here, if you’re expecting us to build an atom bomb to get the Falkalnds back... Peaceful talking is not worth it since it seems it’s a weakness for a country....
Your opinion could be not the same as your countrymen, but I really dont see any moral in leading a country to grow militarily to gain respect and be able to recover what’s its. Your ideas of “helping the world get better” but teaching us to get stronger weapons and destroying middle eastern villages is really sick.....
I completely agree with this option. I believe if you came here with this choice the constitution would be inmediately changed. It’s just a matter of who does it first, if we changed the constitution and you dont offer anything, we’ll look like weak idiots. Make your offer, we’ll step back too.
Regards Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Dec 29, 2004 23:12:55 GMT -3
Hutch,
No. I did not say that I agreed to any external intervention. The only kind of intervention I would consider supporting is the case of the Soviet Union, who prohibited their people from leaving. By the way, thank you for your invaluable support on this issue. The way you boycotted the Olympics speaks eloquently about your courage and high moral standards. Correct me if I am wrong , but as far as I know, Irakis were allowed to travel freely. Huch, you are missing the point. Right or wrong, you have no right to intervine on any country's internal affairs unless directed by a majority vote at the United Nations. And it is not you who must decide who is a tyrant and who isn't. Period. Maybe I love the Junta and maybe I hate it; in any case it is none of your bussiness. Get it? Of course, you can disagree with this, but keep in mind you are setting the precedent for what's to come. I do not want to hear you whining when the Chinese decide that you are a jerk and must be killed. The same rules should apply to all. In any case, you answered yourself when you wrote: "Why did the UK not act against the military rulers of S.America? Because you were our allies..." I could not have said it better.
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Dec 30, 2004 9:35:39 GMT -3
Hutch:
TEXT
The question should be forwarded to someone who lived under Saddan dictatorship. What use would be my answer?
But you evade the issue; after all, who put Saddan in power? Can you answer this "stand alone" question?
Why did you not ask this question before he was in power, say, "is there anyone in Iraq (or elsewhere) who want our guy in power?"
My anwer is more comprehensive; I do not want any killing, maiming, rape, and so on. If this means to have this guy just threatening with words (as he did), that would be OK for me.
Your questioning reminds me of lawyers; or some simple minded person who asks difficult questions and demands a yes or no answer.
Example1: Are you for or against abortion? Yes or no? The subject entails so many variants that a yes or no answer is innefective. What if the fetus has a severe mal formation? What if it was the result of a rape? What if the mother is going to die? And so on.
Example 2: Do you support free press? Yes or no? Again, publishing your pasword, health records, political affiliation would be troublesome. If someone publish this type of information and we are against it someone could ask: are you against the freedom of information?
Yes or no questions are just good to address labels and turn the discussion easier for who has the weak argument (or no argument), evading the point.
Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Dec 30, 2004 13:01:41 GMT -3
Noelia.
Hope you have a good vacation, somewhere nice. Christmas always exhausts me with all the family, friends, eating,drinking and so on so i feel i need a holiday when its all over and im back at work!
I dont see how this thinking leads to war. For the benefit of its own people a nation should be economically strong and have the power to defend its own borders-a well run and equipped military is vital for defence as well as offence, dealing with terrorists, the resources to take part in Peacekeeping, disaster relief, etc. It does not lead to war at all on its own-Japan and Germany (about 10 years ago) were two examples of economically strong, militarily strong nations who did not go to war.
No ones expecting you to 'build an atom bomb', but its a simple fact of real life that if Argentina was both economically and militarily strong and/or stable then her hand would be far better in dealing with the UK and the FI. One cannnot escape the fact that Argentina is undergoing serious trials at the moment ,although the situation does seem to be improving, so the prospect of a 'union' with Argentina is not a promising economic idea for the FI.
Peacefull talking is a great idea, but its always best to negotiate from a position of strength. Not a position of threats, or even of greater power than the other, but from a position of domestic strength. And the best reflections of this are usually economic and military capacity coupled with social calm, free press, etc.
"Your opinion could be not the same as your countrymen..."
I dont understand this. You were the one who said that ' discrimination was a sin the UK didnt have' not anyone else. Yes, some of my countrymen may believe that but i dont and no one said it here but you. I could just as easily say that less than 100% of Argentines believe that they should own the FI and theres no way to prove or disprove that as you are assigning opinions to other people.
"...but I really dont see any moral in leading a country to grow militarily to gain respect and be able to recover what’s its..."
I didnt say it was moral but it makes perfect obvious sense to do so.
"Your ideas of “helping the world get better” but teaching us to get stronger weapons and destroying middle eastern villages is really sick....."
I wasnt teaching anyone to do anything of the sort. But it is blindingly obvious that a nation that wants to be taken seriously has to have one or more of certain attributes, be it military strength, great wealth, strong economy, and so on. If i'm 'teaching' anything in relation to this point its that domestic strength can confer international strength.
If the UK came with this deal the Constitution would be changed? Sorry but we're not going to take that risk-if you say 'no' then we would look weak and like we believed that you had a legitimate soverignty claim.
You see how the argument goes both ways-you say you cant change/drop the Clause beacuse it would make you look weak, we can say the same about coming up with a deal. Thats why i said it had to be part of a synchronised deal, whereby both sides would announce and act at the same time. As the Argentine government(s) seem uninterested in this its no surprise that they continue to fail.
Who should make the offer, come forward with talks on compromises on both sides, so that further synchronus moves can be made? Well as its Argentina who wants to change the status quo, they have to. Relations between the UK and Argentina are-as i understand it-completely normal in all areas. There is nothing therefore to make the UK/FI want to come up with a deal. No pressure from Argentina other than its childish bullying of the Islands, no ill effects for the UK of not coming up with a solution, no meaningfull pressure from the UN, no pressure from all your supporters (seemingly the entire of S America), nothing. The UK is more powerful than Argentina in every sphere so why would we come up with a deal when we dont have to and where there seems to be no need for one? That sounds arrogant i know but again its a simple, obvious truth. As long as Argentina comtinues to moan, bully on a petty scale and make no attempt to bring any kind of pressure to bear on the UK, why would we make an offer? If such a deal as the one i outlined were possible then it would, to begin with, be done in secret during high level talks with all sides and then gestures being made all at the same time to show unaminity of thought and deed.
You can follow the advice of those who say 'time is on our side, we'll wait for a united S America, we'll wait 400 years if we have to' etc, but that just consolidates the FI independence from Argentina. If, for example, oil is discovered in FI territory then Argentina will get none of it if it is still waiting around for someone else to come and save them, be it the UN, S America, Mercosur, China et al. Then one could see an oil boom in the FI with none of the money going to Argentina due to their own reliance on waiting around for others to do something.
Gabriel.
Not to any external intervention no, as i said-
"So you agree with the basic proposition then, that external/foreign military intervention would be acceptable under certain circumstances? Now i'm not saying that all else flows from there but it is a start as it illustrates that the concept is not alien or hateful to you."
So you would consider sending troops/whatever in to a nation if they did not allow their citizens to leave but not if they were killing those same citizens in vast numbers? Sort of a passport holding based system then?
What Olympics? The Moscow ones? That raises the issue of whether sports and politics should be connected which is an entirely differnt area and argument altogether.
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Dec 30, 2004 13:02:05 GMT -3
Iraqis were not allowed to travel freely-it was a dictatorship. North Korea, China and Cuba (at least) all restrict travel so would you support action against these nations based on this?
So even if its 'right' to do so we could not intefere in any nations internal affairs no matter what. But if 30(?) other nations say so we can. So is national soverignty defined by majority voting of a supranational body?
And what is the UN made up of? Many nations of dubious records-Zimbabwe is using food as a weapon. Libya, North Korea, China, Cuba are dictatorships. Turkey and Germany have committed genocide. The USA and the UK are fighting a war others disagreed with. Saudi Arabia doesent let women drive cars. And so on and so forth. Sadly the UN is not made up of democratic, noble nations-it is made up of humans often blinded by their own national interests and ideology not by what is 'right'.
I'm not saying we should abandon it, but it is not a perfect organization. Why has Darfur not been declared genocide when (i'd say) it clearly is? Because of politics and various national interest. Multilateralism is the best option but not always the only one. Too often the UN sits on the sidelines instead of saying 'This is wrong, stop it or face the consequences.'
Precident? It was established long ago. Your example of the Chinese is a little off as we did not go into Iraq because we thought they were 'jerks' who needed to be killed. But perhaps if nations were more aware of the consequences of their actions towards their own peoples they would act better towards them. A vain hope? I'd imagine the farmers of Darfur or the monks of Tibet would like their respective opressors to fear international opinion and action more.
And yes the same rules should apply to all
Maquilishuat.
Its a basic, moral question which i asked you as i want to know your answer, thats why it would be of use. Someone who lived under Saddam would have an answer but it would be based on experience. I would like to hear your answer as you seem to believe that a government should be allowed to do anything at all to its population with no fear of exterior censure or action.
I wasnt evading the quesion of who put Saddam in power as thats not what we were (directly) discussing. I also already said that "In the Cold War the West supported brutal dictatorships..."
Who put Saddam in power? A mix of the CIA, Arab Nationalists, Socialists (the Baath party was secular and socialist), the party he was a member of, a coup plot he was involved in and others. He wasnt just an American stooge parachuted in-he had been active in the Baath Party for years before he got into power. He was then armed by the USSR more than anyone. The USA only really became involved with him when he might have lost the Iran-Iraq war and led to regional destabilisation.
You can hardly compare our two questions though as mine was a simple moral one, based on personal conviction and yours was a historical one.
"Why did you not ask this question before he was in power, say, "is there anyone in Iraq (or elsewhere) who want our guy in power?"
I believe he took power after being involved in a coup, i cant look it up right now. But im sure he wasnt 'our guy' who we put into power-he made it himself.
"My anwer is more comprehensive; I do not want any killing, maiming, rape, and so on...."
Good for you but thats exacally what went on in Iraq. And were you happy enough with that as it was all internal? More comprehensive? Well you still dont answer the question.
"If this means to have this guy just threatening with words (as he did), that would be OK for me."
I'm not sure i understand this. He may have just threatened some but he carried out threats on his own people, Iranians, Kuwaitis, Kurds. Including gas attacks.
Yes, it is a difficult question and one you seem unable to answer or fully explain why you cant answer it. Its meant to be difficult and simple at the same time, but many moral questions do have a yes or no answer as they are black and white as the answer itself depends on the personal conviction of the person answering it. This is often based on religion or experience-do you agree in capital punishment, abortion, divorce, and so on. Many Catholics for example forbid abortion even in cases of rape and incest as its a moral issue with only one answer.
Your examples are neither here nor there but more distraction- a free press isnt even a moral question.
"Yes or no questions are just good to address labels and turn the discussion easier for who has the weak argument (or no argument), evading the point."
What point am i evading? You're the one who fails to answer questions posed to you or properly explain why you cant. So i ask again-
"Would you want the world to ignore it if the military took over in Argentina tomorrow and started shooting everyone who wore glasses?"
I'm not trying to find out anything else other than do you believe that external interventions in a nations affairs are always wrong, all the time under all circumstances no matter what? Do you belive that? Or not?
Can you answer either of those questions? The example about Argentina is just there to give colour to the issue, i could have said anywhere.
All the best and Happy New Year!
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Dec 30, 2004 17:53:07 GMT -3
Hutch, I wonder what Otto, Gabriel, Noelia want to suppress? The truth? Of course not, they already know the truth but show no desire to admit what is true and right. Saddam's bio. (From the Iraq Foundation) www.iraqfoundation.org/research/bioBest wishes and a very happy New Year to all. John.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Dec 31, 2004 12:05:02 GMT -3
Hutch,
I never said the UN is a perfect organization, quite the contrary, but just like the UN, our own democracies are {made up of humans often blinded by their own national interests and ideology not by what is 'right'}. We are going in circles with this. This war is not about principles, it is about money. The arguments used by those who support it are somewhat convincing only in the countries involved in the attack, and not convincing at all to anyone else. 30 countries do not support this war, 30 governments do. Not quite the same. The majority of people in Britain do not support it, same as in the US. Why should Irak be punished for invading Kuwait, and an embargo should be applied to Cuba, but China is given favorite trading status after the invasion of Tibet? How can you rationalize this? How can you look at this facts and conclude that those who are engaged in the war do it because they believe it is right? Why were agreements signed time and time again with the Soviet regime, who was guilty of the worst genocide against their own people, but North Korea must be stopped? Can you explain what's the difference here? It is not enough to point out that Saddam was a jerk. Everyone knew that Al Capone was a jerk, but he went to jail for tax evation. The rule of law was applied there. Why isn't it applied now?
Gabriel
PS: Happy new year.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Dec 31, 2004 16:42:05 GMT -3
John
When the whole planet Earth says this war was madness (Irak, I mean), then it must be truth, no matter how important british and american opinion is, sorry to tell, you're NOT the owners of the planet, and your are certainly NOT the owners of the truth. So it's you who wants to hide the truth, either to keep working in irak, or to hide a terrible mistake you dont want to admit. You all say the Falklands war was a mistake, the world was against our invasion.... Why the world against us is acceptable, but the world against you, it's something to ignore? The british ego is reaching a impressive scale my friend, think about it.
Noelia
PS: By the way, Argentineans agree with the world, our invasion WAS a mistake, our DEFACTO government did it without people's permission. Argentina, under a democracy (even a corrupted one) would never invade a country "to protect freedom" and take its oil.
|
|