Anybody up-to-date on current events, I need help!

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 09:39 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;133129 wrote:
I do see, being Dutch, USA as a foreign power. The US has political sovereignity over native american nations. And Puerto Rico p.e..
Pepijn Sweep;133129 wrote:
Furthermore US has suzerainty over many countries. This can be political, military, economical or cultural. In the case of Athens it was intellectual.
Pepijn Sweep;133129 wrote:
It is not necessary that DC is the centre nexus; other agencies in Virginia are fully capable to run USA.

Well, Washington is part of a smaller district called the district of Colombia. The district of Colombia interestingly enough does not have any representation in congress, even though it is home to the national capital. Outside of that district, Washington DC has no power over state action. States and the Federal government at exclusive entities. Could Virginia be fully capable of running the US? They can barely manage themselves, let alone an entire collective of 50 states.

Pepijn Sweep;133129 wrote:

Luckily so; there still is industry in EU. But in Holland we are getting presured to buy US fighters, while we can easily make them in Sweden and France.

Pressure to buy and buying are very different things. I would imagine what kind of diplomatic incidents would arise if the US highly pressured another sovereign country to buy military hardware.

Interesting thing though, I have some numbers here on the Royal Netherlands Air force you may find interesting. The combined 2008 est. of the Royal Netherlands Air Force is 241 combat and support aircraft. Of those 241 aircraft, 186 (77.18%) are manufactured by countries other than the US, which means that only 55 aircraft (22.82%) were purchased directly from the US. Another interesting fact is that the primary fighter jet, the F-16 falcon, was primarily built under license to Fokker (who evidently went bankrupt in 1996). Just for comparisons sake, the US has over 6,700 (2008 est.) military aircraft.

However, I read that the Netherlands is slated to purchase 85 F35A stealth fighters to replace the antiquated F16 fleet. However, any pressure to buy would be non-existent considering how much the Netherlands co-invested with the US and other countries to develop the air craft in the first place. Suffice to say the Netherlands would be out close to a billion US dollars of their own investment if they decided to elsewhere.
Pepijn Sweep;133129 wrote:
I agree with you people should have a free choice to join the Army. Or the Navy... I also strongly believe in just wars. Most of all I want fairness.

I completely agree as well, both in terms of the choice to join the armed forces or in the respect of just war. As far as fairness goes, what I want above all (as an American), is what is constitutional. There are many shades of fairness, but a more positivistic conveyance in constitutionalism.

Pepijn Sweep;133129 wrote:
I did not realize you see the militairy as part of the educational system. I admit to be biased and misinformed.

The military is a viable option for educated people, as well as people wanting to continue their education. In many respects, the US military is a corporation. As to being biased and misinformed, I don't think you are either. However, outside prejudicial implications are rife in the world, and misconceptions are everywhere, especially when it comes to the US military.
 
Insty
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 12:36 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;133110 wrote:
It totally was. Homework, that is.

Thanks everyone!


Any feedback to report on any of the examples?
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 09:03 pm
@Insty,
Insty;133281 wrote:
Any feedback to report on any of the examples?


I was about to use yours, but then I used Lost1's example of Iran not using their nuclear weapons. Thanks, anyway. I didn't really read the other posts, but I imagine a pretty good conversation took place.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 09:54 pm
@Quinn phil,
The way many people in the world responded to America's plan to invade Iraq indicated that they believed their opinions should have some bearing on the actions of the US military... as if their "vote" should count. The reality, that they don't vote in American elections to choose the commander in chief of the US military, was out of step with expectations.

There appeared to be assumptions that the UN should be a global governor. Again, the UN isn't a government... but if it suddenly became one, the US would be a significant aspect of it.

I think using the word empire in regard to the US comes from two places:

1. the way the US sought to take the place of a real empire: the British Empire, especially in terms of protecting the infrastructure of global trade

2. attitudes that could be seen as the prelude to political globalization, in other words the mistaken notion that it already exists
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 04:53 am
@Arjuna,
:Glasses:
Arjuna;133449 wrote:
The way many people in the world responded to America's plan to invade Iraq indicated that they believed their opinions should have some bearing on the actions of the US military... as if their "vote" should count. The reality, that they don't vote in American elections to choose the commander in chief of the US military, was out of step with expectations.

There appeared to be assumptions that the UN should be a global governor. Again, the UN isn't a government... but if it suddenly became one, the US would be a significant aspect of it.

I think using the word empire in regard to the US comes from two places:

1. the way the US sought to take the place of a real empire: the British Empire, especially in terms of protecting the infrastructure of global trade

2. attitudes that could be seen as the prelude to political globalization, in other words the mistaken notion that it already exists

:whistling:

I do agree with u about the election of Commanders-in-Chief of the USA. It would be a strange situation if US citizens had any influence on the appointment of Lady Ashton to Commander-in-Chief of EUFOR.

The point is a lack of trust in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defense of the United States of America. Not only were we misinformed, but lied to by our own PM. For the support of this un-just war a Dutch christian was appointed Secretary-General to the NATO. In the previous war in Kosovo there was no US air support to defend the moslim-enclave Sebrenica. Bombing Belgrad was more opportune...

After the defeat of Sadam western business was ready to take over the oil-business so oil would keep coming in at $50 a barrel. The USA was using not only regular forces but also mercendaries. The UN employs soldiers from countries just out of racial conflict to fight our un-just war in Afganistan. A soldier from Uganda gets $500 a month to fight the Taliban! I just wonder the salary-administration of former Blackwell.

All trough the 20th Century the USA demonstrated Imperial tendencies. The White Fleet was to demonstrate the power of the USA to the rest of the world. Many times the presidents proclaimed an emergency situation to avoid asking the legislator to declare war. This stretching of the Constitution is typical to would-be Imperial rulers. I can refer to Imperial Presidency by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., published in 1973. One of the examples is the State militia's which I believe are now under federal control.

In the Roman Republic an imperator was temporarily appointed by the Senate in times of war. Julius later Caesare wouldn't let go of this powers; the Senators tried to reverse this but Augustus became the first Emporer of the Roman Empire.

About the conduct of the USA in international relations I have not much to say. As it is, international law is still depending on the consensus of the international community. I believe USA, Great-Brittain and The Netherlands broke this consensus by invading Iraq and starting a dis-proportional war without support from the UN. Also the consequences for the civilians were way out of proportion. Not only in The Netherlands but all over Europe we question the information we get from our NATO ally.

After 11 september we had our formal procession to open the Parlement by our Queen. Out of respect to what happened in NY the procession was stopped in front of the USA-embassy for a minute. I think it would be only fair to make a tour this year and stop at every Ambasade of countries involved and damaged in this global power game. Even if it means the Senators and Representives have to wait...

The newly elected Staten-Generaal wouldn't mind for this symbolic gesture of pacifism. The Queen wouldn't like it but she's not the crowned Head of State. She can allways abdicate, but then we are left with a corrupt and lying Christian as our demissionair PM.

After WO II the USA put presure on the European Empires to decolonize. This was not done to stimulate global trading, but to get a piece of the cake too. Mainly economic pressure luckily!


:detective:
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 08:27 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;133516 wrote:

All trough the 20th Century the USA demonstrated Imperial tendencies. The White Fleet was to demonstrate the power of the USA to the rest of the world. Many times the presidents proclaimed an emergency situation to avoid asking the legislator to declare war. This stretching of the Constitution is typical to would-be Imperial rulers. I can refer to Imperial Presidency by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., published in 1973. One of the examples is the State militia's which I believe are now under federal control.
Well, you did pick the one time the US did actually subjugate another country: the Phillipines. But they gave it back. Broadly speaking, Americans want to make a profit off of the world, but they don't want to actually govern it. Having an real empire is very expensive. After WWII, many thought the Europeans would go back to taking care of governance, and the US could go back to hiding behind the British. In stages, Americans realized that wasn't going to happen. In the meantime, some Europeans took advantage of American ignorance. The result was a deep disappointment and the development of a rift between the US and Europeans. For more details, there's a good book that describes the American view of the Cold War: The Fifty-Year Wound by Derek Leebaert. He addresses the question of whether the Cold War militarized the US society.
Pepijn Sweep;133516 wrote:

In the Roman Republic an imperator was temporarily appointed by the Senate in times of war. Julius later Caesare wouldn't let go of this powers; the Senators tried to reverse this but Augustus became the first Emporer of the Roman Empire.
The US is made up of the people of the world. The culture is an extrapolation of parts of the British culture. One thing the two share is a deep-seated fear of tyranny. It's partly philosophical, but the roots of it are emotional: in the American imagination, the tyrant appears as a kind of supernatural monster: an antichrist-like figure. So what you're describing is something that Americans have and are very sensitive about.

Pepijn Sweep;133516 wrote:
After 11 september we had our formal procession to open the Parlement by our Queen. Out of respect to what happened in NY the procession was stopped in front of the USA-embassy for a minute. I think it would be only fair to make a tour this year and stop at every Ambasade of countries involved and damaged in this global power game. Even if it means the Senators and Representives have to wait...
Two things: post 911, the slightest scrap of condolences from other countries meant more to me than I would have imagined they would. On the other hand, I agree. The invasion of Iraq became a fiasco and the ones who suffered should be recognized. I've only known one Iraqi in my life. He was a "salt of the earth" kind of good man. He worked for Bell Labs. I have high hopes for Iraq.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 10:19 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;133516 wrote:
:Glasses:
:whistling:


After WO II the USA put presure on the European Empires to decolonize. This was not done to stimulate global trading, but to get a piece of the cake too. Mainly economic pressure luckily!


:detective:



Yes, so the United States did. And what a terrible mistake that was! And after that Jimmy Carter (the brilliant) forced out the Shah of Iran. And see what we have instead.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 10:32 am
@Arjuna,
Thank you for returning. I had coffee in The Beehive with uncles, aunts and my sister. It had been a sad year for us. Among us we have lost brothers, sisters, mothers, sisters-in-law and bad relations with banks en government. some of my family are still not on speaking Terms with our fathers.

I want Peace or War.

I might sound angry but that out of frustration over a private matter.

The way society is organised now is horrible for most of the People of the Earth. i am one of the lucky one's; I have enough leisure-Time to study & learn. I see it as a Privalege and am truly gratefull at the moment to realice this.

In Holland we attempted to educate the masses...well 12.000.000

I have no clue if the funding of our educationsystem was a succes.

my school turned out well, a PM and a Treasur
a little bragging to make an impression
we used to have games with the marines and the navy

I meet people from Georgetow & Atlanta. From the Peoples Republic of China, the USSR, and Santo Domingo.

Now I live in an ice neighbourhood.
 
Insty
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 10:36 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;133449 wrote:
The way many people in the world responded to America's plan to invade Iraq indicated that they believed their opinions should have some bearing on the actions of the US military... as if their "vote" should count. The reality, that they don't vote in American elections to choose the commander in chief of the US military, was out of step with expectations.


I don't think people from other nations believed that the US was obliged to take heed of their opinions in deciding whether to invade Iraq. I think they felt that the US was obliged to take heed of international law. The invasion of Iraq was at least arguably a violation of the UN Charter.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 11:07 am
@Insty,
Insty;133568 wrote:
The invasion of Iraq was at least arguably a violation of the UN Charter.


I suppose that means that it was possible that it was a violation of the Charter, and not that it was plausible that it was.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 11:14 am
@Insty,
Pepijn Sweep;133566 wrote:
Now I live in an ice neighbourhood.
I'm sorry for your losses. I hope the tulips bloom again.

Insty;133568 wrote:
I don't think people from other nations believed that the US was obliged to take heed of their opinions in deciding whether to invade Iraq. I think they felt that the US was obliged to take heed of international law. The invasion of Iraq was at least arguably a violation of the UN Charter.
And that points well to the situation we now find ourselves in. There is no law without some authority to enforce it. At this point the only enforcer in the world is nature. What's implied is the need for submission of all nations to a global governor. As people tend to forget: the US military has a massive nuclear arsenal with the ability to destroy anything, anywhere, anytime. The world needs a healthy United States... until they figure out how to shoot all Americans into outer space.
 
Insty
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 11:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;133576 wrote:
I suppose that means that it was possible that it was a violation of the Charter, and not that it was plausible that it was.

No, the argument that the invasion was a violation of the UN Charter is more than merely plausible.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 12:11 pm
@Insty,
Insty;133583 wrote:
No, the argument that the invasion was a violation of the UN Charter is more than merely plausible.


What is much more plausible is that the existence of the UN is a drag on world peace, and decent government. The General Assembly reminds me of nothing so much as the famous bar scene in the first Star Wars film.
 
melonkali
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 12:11 pm
@Quinn phil,
Interesting link about modern Iraq, written in 2003 -- since the article seems a little too "centrist" from my perspective, it's probably a fairer piece than the ones I'd really like to link to.

http://www.louiswesseling.com/Iraq.pdf

rebecca
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 12:16 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali;133587 wrote:
Interesting link about modern Iraq, written in 2003 -- since the article seems a little too "centrist" from my perspective, it's probably a fairer piece than the ones I'd really like to link to.

http://www.louiswesseling.com/Iraq.pdf

rebecca


You would rather link to a biased peace than one that is fair? That is uncommonly candid of the left, I have to say.
 
melonkali
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 12:30 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;133589 wrote:
You would rather link to a biased peace than one that is fair? That is uncommonly candid of the left, I have to say.


Well, of course I'd like to link to a biased piece and employ some flashy rhetorical tools! Wouldn't you?

Like probably everyone else here, I've already done some preliminary "unbiased" research and I've formed strong opinions.

On the other hand, this isn't a courtroom or "debate club". How are decent, reasonable people ever going to come close to a consensus if we can't even agree upon the facts? One step at a time, eh?

rebecca
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 01:07 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali;133593 wrote:
Well, of course I'd like to link to a biased piece and employ some flashy rhetorical tools! Wouldn't you?

Like probably everyone else here, I've already done some preliminary "unbiased" research and I've formed strong opinions.

On the other hand, this isn't a courtroom or "debate club". How are decent, reasonable people ever going to come close to a consensus if we can't even agree upon the facts? One step at a time, eh?

rebecca


Yes, As I said, refreshingly candid from someone on the left. So unexpected. In fact it is rare for those on the left even to care about truthfulness.
 
Insty
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 01:12 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;133586 wrote:
What is much more plausible is that the existence of the UN is a drag on world peace, and decent government. The General Assembly reminds me of nothing so much as the famous bar scene in the first Star Wars film.

You haven't advanced an argument. You've made a bunch of assertions. And the assertions are completely irrelevant to the question of whether the US violated the UN Charter when it invaded Iraq. You may not like the UN or the UN Charter. The problem, however, is that the US is a signatory to the UN Charter, and as long as the US remains a member nation, it is bound by the UN Charter's provisions. If you have reasons for thinking that the Iraq War was not a violation of international law, by all means share them. But casting aspersion on the UN won't do.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 01:14 pm
@Insty,
Insty;133598 wrote:
You haven't advanced an argument. You've made a bunch of assertions. And the assertions are completely irrelevant to the question of whether the US violated the UN Charter when it invaded Iraq. You may not like the UN or the UN Charter. The problem, however, is that the US is a signatory to the UN Charter, and as long as the US remains a member nation, it is bound by the UN Charter's provisions. If you have reasons for thinking that the Iraq War was not a violation of international law, by all means share them. But casting aspersion on the UN won't do.


It is really up to you, and those who assert it was a violation, to prove it. Why should it be up to anyone to show it wasn't a violation?
 
Insty
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 01:36 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;133599 wrote:
It is really up to you, and those who assert it was a violation, to prove it. Why should it be up to anyone to show it wasn't a violation?

The burden is properly on you to make arguments in support of the intervention because on its face, the war was plainly a violation of the Charter. The UN refused to authorize the US's action. And the Charter, by which the US is bound, makes very clear that war is permissible only under certain limited circumstances. If a member nation wishes to engage in war with another nation, it's incumbent upon the nation contemplating war to show that one of the exceptional circumstances is met.

And no one is saying that you need to prove that the war was a violation of international law. You just need to give some reasons in support of your view. Otherwise, those who disagree with you won't know where to begin.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2022 at 08:36:15