|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Next in poli-sci 101 we're going to discuss the bicameral parliament... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why are you knowingly and intentionally making this sort of faulty argument? |
Why are you arguing for conflicts you lack sufficient bravery to fight in? |
Why do you advocate laws that you lack the bravery to enforce yourself? Or do you not advocate the enforcement of any laws what so ever?
See how silly it sounds? |
No. I don't. I have a well defined sense of perspective and proportion. Invading a nation is different in proportion to enforcing traffic laws. They don't teach this in undergrad, btw. You'll need a few years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The first Americans were upset about representation. The republic was founded on independence from the UK. |
Yes, freedom from tyranny and the right to pursue unalienable human rights. 'Natural laws' that John Locke described, someone who greatly influenced the founders' thoughts. Anyway I said 'a reason', you failed to comprehend what that means. It was a factor, one of many.
| mises wrote: |
| How can something be exceptional before it exists? |
It was aiming to be exceptional, freedom from oppression.
| mises wrote: |
| How old were you during the debate? High school, right? I don't mean to be too rude, but I think you missed it. WMD was used to scare the easily scared American and "freedom" and "democracy" were used to inspire the easily inspired American. Worked pretty darn well. |
So which had the effect on the majority - the people who elect the government. Want to actually provide an article.... a statement by Bush that attempts to persuade the 'easily inspired'.
| mises wrote: |
| You are actually going to challenge that "freedom" and "democracy" were part of the pre-invasion propaganda? |
You're very good taking things to extremes, I said WMD was the main argument for war, but now you say I say it didn't have anything to do with it. Your discussion skills are disastrous.
| mises wrote: |
| Were you at all paying attention in those days? Entire forests were sacrificed for discussions of the "just war theory". |
But you don't quote a source... so you're just typing words.
| Quote: |
"My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
...
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
|
You don't source this but I presume it's from when the war has started. Regardless, from the same radio address "our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". so he lists it third. Seems a little tacked on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn, mises. If I didn't know your username, I'd have sworn I posted that!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
....
Quit comparing the military option of North Korea with Iraq.
Was Iraq a good or even entirely just idea? NO. But that does not however mean that anytime a military incident raises its head that people look back and say "what about iraq!" thats not how it works, and its just foolish when people, including in this thread do it, trying to compare North Korea to Iraq.
For one, North Korea IS AN actual threat to the region, and if left unchecked , within 3-5 years to the mainland of the United States (west coast)
While military action agsinst North Korea is unlikely absent some overt agressive military move by the North, if military action were taken agaisnt pyongyang, at this point it would be fully justified. They given more then needed in terms of causus belli over the years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why are you knowingly and intentionally making this sort of faulty argument? |
Why are you arguing for conflicts you lack sufficient bravery to fight in? |
Why do you advocate laws that you lack the bravery to enforce yourself? Or do you not advocate the enforcement of any laws what so ever?
See how silly it sounds? |
No. I don't. |
I know you don't, my questions were rhetorical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| ..we have a reasonable framework for what determines situations where intervention can be undertaken and by what means..... |
Apart from treaties between countries, international relations is actually anarchic. The UN is the only world-wide framework for judging intervention 'objectively'.
| Fox wrote: |
| ...a system where if substantial human rights abuses are happening, meaningful action is undertaken to rectify it. |
Maybe there should be a system for justified intervention - basically a world police who have authority to intervene for the majority opinion of the world. However, it can't be a group of countries deciding to do this, it can't just be "broad international support". That's like mob rule in your analogy. It has to be an agreed upon by a democratically elected, universal force. Otherwise the problems of self-serving intervention arises.
| Fox wrote: |
| ...there's another factor I feel should be considered: whether or not you allow harm to be done... substantially increas[ing] likelihood of devestating future harm befalling the citizens of other nations. |
| Fox wrote: |
| In trade for the people who would die in such an action, we gain... psychological benefit...chance for political freedom for millions of future people... chance for a higher standard of living for those people....dramatically reduce the odds of highly devestating attacks. |
But I don't think anyone gets to decide to 'trade' someone else's life for anything, it literally isn't yours, if their government actually attacks it's a different matter. Dealing with future possibilities is also inherently flawed (see Rice's assertion of the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud).
Interference necessarily doesn't involve the input of the people actually involved, in fact, it specifically doesn't include those people most affected. Maybe in NK it's obviously okay, but the precedent means a country isn't responsible to the people directly affected. Maybe if an objective organisation weighs it up and realises 'net well being' is higher if you attacked, then okay. Again, this is the 'world police'.
I think we both agree that if the UN, representing truly the world population, decided on interference or pre-emption this is justifiable. However, I think I've clearly stated how breaking the (already broken!) precedent of preemptive, humanitarian war, is generally and ultimately something that will create more harm than a universal law such as "any state is not allowed to hurt an individuals rights, regardless of the good that could come from it."
| Fox wrote: |
| If I'm being honest, I think I would kill one person to save thousands. |
Thinking about it now it's probably not the best analogy I've given. However, remember, you'd be tried as a murderer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| ..we have a reasonable framework for what determines situations where intervention can be undertaken and by what means..... |
Apart from treaties between countries, international relations is actually anarchic. The UN is the only world-wide framework for judging intervention 'objectively'. |
That was actually referring to individual citizens within a country, made in reference to the analogy of a man who lives next to a child beater.
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| ...a system where if substantial human rights abuses are happening, meaningful action is undertaken to rectify it. |
Maybe there should be a system for justified intervention - basically a world police who have authority to intervene for the majority opinion of the world. However, it can't be a group of countries deciding to do this, it can't just be "broad international support". That's like mob rule in your analogy. It has to be an agreed upon by a democratically elected, universal force. Otherwise the problems of self-serving intervention arises. |
I don't think a few dictatorial countries who know they'd lose out in the more civilized system dissenting need be an impediment. So long as most countries assent, I think that's sufficient. Few of us seriously think a democratically elected government is invalid because some nut jobs in Montana want anarchy; the same can be applied here.
| RufusW wrote: |
| But I don't think anyone gets to decide to 'trade' someone else's life for anything... |
And yet, we do it. Our law enforcement for instance does make the trade off of the lives of some criminals in return for order. Women getting abortions make the trade off of a baby's life for their freedom (and I support their right to make this choice). Our government made the choice to trade off the lives of several Somali pirates in return for the safety of one of our citizens.
We make these trades all the time, and we'd be hard pressed to exist in an orderly and safe fashion without making them from time to time. Is it unfortunate? Yes, but life sometimes is.
| RufusW wrote: |
| Dealing with future possibilities is also inherently flawed |
I dislike your choice of words when you say flawed, but I agree it's got it's problems.
| RufusW wrote: |
| However, I think I've clearly stated how breaking the (already broken!) precedent of preemptive, humanitarian war, is generally and ultimately something that will create more harm than a universal law such as "any state is not allowed to hurt an individuals rights, regardless of the good that could come from it." |
I still disagree with the impact "precedents" have in this sort of situation. I agree with you that countries could use "humanitarian intervention" as a mask for decidedly non-humanitarian intervention. I don't feel undertaking humanitarian intervention makes that more likely; national governments are generally politically savvy enough to know roughly what to expect in terms of reaction from the world community when they act in such a fashion. Someone "breaking the ice" so to speak I suspect has far less actual impact on their decisions than you assert.
I suspect we are at an impasse on that particular.
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| If I'm being honest, I think I would kill one person to save thousands. |
Thinking about it now it's probably not the best analogy I've given. However, remember, you'd be tried as a murderer. |
I factored that possibility into my decision; if I'm forcing someone to sacrifice their own life for the greater good against their will, how could I balk at merely sacrificing my physical freedom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| While military action agsinst North Korea is unlikely absent some overt agressive military move by the North, if military action were taken agaisnt pyongyang, at this point it would be fully justified. |
I would 100% agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| But I don't think anyone gets to decide to 'trade' someone else's life for anything... |
And yet, we do it. Our law enforcement for instance...[etc] |
These are 'transactions' within universally agreed upon laws. Whereas independent state action is outside any framework and hard to justify merely in concept.
| Fox wrote: |
| I still disagree with the impact "precedents" have in this sort of situation. |
Well I suppose my viewpoint is highly ideological/philosophical and you're a lot more pragmatic and 'realistic' about it. Maybe precedents aren't all-important in 'real life', but they will have some effect. Saving 1000 lives by breaking a precedent may well be 'worth it'.
| Fox wrote: |
| I don't think a few dictatorial countries... dissenting need be an impediment. So long as most countries assent, I think that's sufficient. |
If you're saying preemption/humanitarian war/interference is justifiable when supported by a majority of the world's population then I think we've come to an agreement. In that scenario I would expect whatever organisation it is would be concerned with the maximum well being for the world's population and any decisions it makes should be correct. It would also have been granted a monopoly/right to force. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Damn, mises. If I didn't know your username, I'd have sworn I posted that! |
I'm a big Chris Hedges fan. During the runup to the war in Iraq he wrote a excellent (and topical) book called War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning . It should be read by any and every armchair warrior. It will calm them down.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week622/hedges.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2SaM8RJ30c
But when has America not been at war? Or as Greenwald puts it, who was the last president who wasn't a "war president". Hedges writes a warning to a society drunk on war and war narratives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| But I don't think anyone gets to decide to 'trade' someone else's life for anything... |
And yet, we do it. Our law enforcement for instance...[etc] |
These are 'transactions' within universally agreed upon laws. Whereas independent state action is outside any framework and hard to justify merely in concept. |
I can't agree that these transactions occur within universally agreed upon laws. The example of abortion is assuredly not universally agreed upon. The example of the Somali pirates saw quite a bit of discussion and debate even within these forums. I don't think these laws are universally agreed upon. Rather, I think that civilization demands we sometimes work within legal frameworks which we in part disagree with as individuals because the majority does agree with those laws. The same can and should occur on an international level.
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I don't think a few dictatorial countries... dissenting need be an impediment. So long as most countries assent, I think that's sufficient. |
If you're saying preemption/humanitarian war/interference is justifiable when supported by a majority of the world's population then I think we've come to an agreement. |
I'm glad to hear it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I can't agree that these transactions occur within universally agreed upon laws. |
Well I meant laws set according to the majority which is what a democratic government should represent. These laws (and transactions) are valid because they're giving this backing. They may not be agreed upon but they should be accepted as law (to be changed or not) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Has the DPRK ever 'infringed' on another country's territory?? |
Yes. So? |
So where is your condemnation of the DPRK?
You go to great lengths to explain why other countries shouldn't infringe on the DPRK's sovereignty, yet you skip over the fact that the DPRK has done the very same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| So where is your condemnation of the DPRK? |
Fine, I condemn the actions of NK, but I haven't supported DPRK, I was supporting the philosophical argument.
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| You go to great lengths to explain why other countries shouldn't infringe on the DPRK's sovereignty, yet you skip over the fact that the DPRK has done the very same. |
Yes it has, but that doesn't affect my argument. It may be that you think DPRK have 'declared war' by their actions, but I don't think it justifies an invasion that would kill thousands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
