Spare us the in-your-sleep moralizing

[rumbleph1$h]

Spare us the in-your-sleep moralizing

Thursday, October 27, 2005

By Victor Davis Hanson

To paraphrase the ancient Greeks, it is easy to be moral in your sleep. Abstract ethics or soapbox lectures demanding superhuman perfection mean little without deeds.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other global humanitarian groups recently expressed criticism over the slated trial of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein. Such self-appointed auditors of moral excellence were worried that his legal representation was inadequate. Or perhaps they felt the court of the new Iraqi democracy was not quite up to the standards of wigged European judges in The Hague.

Relay those concerns to the nearly 1 million silent souls butchered by Saddam's dictatorship. Once they waited in vain for any such international human-rights organization to stop the murdering. None could or did.

Now these global watchdogs are barking about legalities ? once Saddam is in shackles thanks solely to the American military (which, too, is often criticized by the same utopian-minded groups). The new Iraqi government is sanctioned by vote and attuned to global public opinion. Saddam Hussein was neither. So Amnesty International can safely chastise the former for supposed misdemeanors after it did little concrete about the real felonies of the latter.

We've seen many examples of this in-your-sleep moralizing. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan pronounced from on high that the American effort to remove Saddam was "illegal" ? this after moral paragons in the Security Council like China and France chose not to sanction the enforcement of their own resolutions.

Annan presided over a callous, scandalous oil-for-food program that starved millions with the connivance of international financial players, among them his own son. Again, it is easier to grandstand on television than curb illicit profits or be firm with a killer in the real world.

Europeans especially demand heaven on earth. The European Union is now pressuring the United States to turn over its exclusive control of the Internet, which it invented and developed, to the United Nations. So far the Americans, so unlike a Saudi Arabia or China, have not blocked users from Net access, and freely adjudicate the World Wide Web according to transparent protocols.

That would never be true of the United Nations. If Iran or Zimbabwe were to end up on the Human Rights Commission, then they would be equally qualified to oversee the computers of millions of Americans. The same European elites who nitpick the United States about its sober stewardship of the Internet would be absolutely impotent once a China or Syria began tampering with millions logging on.

We see still more in-your-sleep moralizing when it comes to the topic of global warming. The heating up of the planet ? and the American rejection of the Kyoto Protocol that was supposed to arrest it ? is a keen source of anti-Americanism, especially in Europe.

Of course, global warming is a real problem, especially in Arctic regions. China has become the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases next to the U.S., accomplishing in 20 years what took us 100. Yet European governments will not say much to China ? it holds too much Western debt and is a lucrative market. Plus, its generals sometimes crazily talk of sending off nuclear missiles or annexing Taiwan outright.

What do all these recent examples have in common? In the world of utopianism, we see that refined reason, not force, reigns. That may be admirable, but, unfortunately, abstract moralizing has little to do with a real world in which brutes abound.

So instead, to maintain the idealistic facade, sleepwalking moralizers chastise those who listen and are civilized ? but see nothing, hear nothing and speak nothing about those in the moral abyss. Not so long ago, they argued in Brussels over the next EU resolution condemning violence in the Balkans, while Milosevic butchered another 10,000.

Then there is the psychological element. When one is fearful and impotent, reassurance is found in processes, resolutions and lectures, both here and abroad ? anything to find conviction that one is at least doing something when in reality doing nothing. So one can scream about a mythical flushed Quran in Guantanamo while silently shrugging that another 50,000 were killed by Islamic fanatics in Darfur.

Americans are easy targets of Kofi Annan, Amnesty International and Europeans. Our military in the shadows alone protects Westernized civilization, which makes these groups' existence both possible and sustainable. Private jets, international finance and global commerce ? the world of the United Nations diplomat, concerned corporate CEO or international celebrity activist ? is a product also of the U.S.-sponsored military-commercial-industrial system. Everyone from Mick Jagger and Bono to Michael Moore and Madonna partake in, and are enriched by, it. But such dependency and familiarity with the solicitous parent America apparently can breed contempt.

So Americans increasingly tune out the U.N., Amnesty International and other once-respected bodies like the Nobel Prize Committee. That's unfortunate, given the noble charters of these groups. But for all these agencies' moralizing, they increasingly prove quite immoral t

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

d University.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbc...13/1110/OPINION

[Edge00]

That is a bit of interesting insite. I especially like...

When one is fearful and impotent, reassurance is found in processes, resolutions and lectures, both here and abroad ? anything to find conviction that one is at least doing something when in reality doing nothing.

That reminds me of a line from MacBeth about, strutting about on the stage of life full of sound and fury, or something to that effect.

I found the quote:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

MacBeth Act V, Scene V

[raid517]

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other global humanitarian groups recently expressed criticism over the slated trial of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein. Such self-appointed auditors of moral excellence were worried that his legal representation was inadequate. Or perhaps they felt the court of the new Iraqi democracy was not quite up to the standards of wigged European judges in The Hague.

Lol I think the only subject at hand here is the now open hostility of many in the American neo conservative establishment to Europe - and indeed to anything that is 'non-American'. (Again I think that is a relative term - as it seems it doesn't take much to be non American - and there is also a deep confusion among many on the right in America with the concept of being non American and being 'un-American').

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch do plenty of good work around the world, not just in Iraq, but in places like China, North Korea, Iran and so on - where there are genuine dissidents that need to be represented and who's plight would otherwise be ignored. They have an interest in seeing equality and justice for everyone. It is entirely appropriate that Saddam Husein should be given a fair trial - because we need to set an example to the world - and in particular to the Arab world - that no matter what you have done, in civilised countries you should always be entitled to a fair trial. How else would you have it? That as supposed victors (although that is also far from decided) we simply go there an assassinate everyone who we object to and who stands in our way? How is that any different from the way Saddam would have done things? How will this enable Iraq as a country to move on from it's previous state of barbarity and despotism?

If you simply kill people while only showing a token deference to international legal standards, how can the Iraqi people - or the world learn from this? In other words, if all you do is stage yet another show trial, where the outcome is guaranteed even before the trial starts, then in what way is this any kind of real progress at all?

Annan presided over a callous, scandalous oil-for-food program that starved millions with the connivance of international financial players, among them his own son. Again, it is easier to grandstand on television than curb illicit profits or be firm with a killer in the real world.

There was a thorough investigation of this whole affair - and while his son - who was a relatively low ranking official within the UN was implicated Annan himself was entirely vindicated of all blame. Besides which, the American right often like to neglect that fact that some of the main players in the oil for food program, were among the biggest players in the US oil industry - and that estimates state that as much as 95% of the oil generated during the oil for food program was exported directly to the USA. Quite ironic don't you think, that you were probably at that time driving around with oil in your car which was generated by a program that you appear to hate so much?

Europeans especially demand heaven on earth. The European Union is now pressuring the United States to turn over its exclusive control of the Internet, which it invented and developed, to the United Nations. So far the Americans, so unlike a Saudi Arabia or China, have not blocked users from Net access, and freely adjudicate the World Wide Web according to transparent protocols.

That would never be true of the United Nations. If Iran or Zimbabwe were to end up on the Human Rights Commission, then they would be equally qualified to oversee the computers of millions of Americans. The same European elites who nitpick the United States about its sober stewardship of the Internet would be

Idiot! All that does is show that he - and probably this poster - does not have the slightest clue how the internet really works. How will the human rights commission ever have anything to do with how the internet is organised? The argument is for a similar governing body to the security council - with only a select few countries holding any sway and with entirely open standards - so that if anyone ever did try to mess around or tamper with anything, the other members would know about this instantly. This would be entirely separate from any other UN body. Moreover, the US may have been conceived of in the US - but the WWW which allows you to come here and regularly post such nonsense is an entirely European invention and was largely initially developed at Cern in Geneva. So at best 'the internet' as we know it, is at best a joint development. No one single country or individual can claim complete merit for anything. The only real reason the US wishes to hold on to exclusive control is so that it can maintain it's grip on power. It can both spy on it's friends and enemies alike and it can pull the plug too, whenever it so desires, But the internet/web as as it stands today, has long ago stopped being an exclusively American thing. The internet belongs to the world - and as such it should be placed in the hands of the world - and not just handed over to the exclusive control of one country.

So instead, to maintain the idealistic facade, sleepwalking moralizers chastise those who listen and are civilized ? but see nothing, hear nothing and speak nothing about those in the moral abyss. Not so long ago, they argued in Brussels over the next EU resolution condemning violence in the Balkans, while Milosevic butchered another 10,000.

Lol how short memory is my friend. If you will recall, America waited JUST AS LONG. And let me say it again, America waited JUST AS LONG. Indeed it waited something like nearly 6 years before taking any action - and even then it was simply due to a public outcry, when millions of people who like me could no longer turn their TVs on in the morning without being afraid that they might become physically ill because of what they saw finally snapped and pressured their governments into action. Left to the politicians, I have no doubt they would never have acted. And don't forget either (although it would appear that you already have) that the Balkan war was a joint NATO exercise - involving all of the members of NATO - and not just the Americans. Indeed if I recall correctly, there was even a large Russian contingent at that time - so it was hardly the lone American crusade that your (or your friend) paints it to be.

Anyway, from what I can tell this guy just despises anything that can be termed as representing individual 'human rights.' Can all of these bodies - including now it seems even the Nobel peace committee for daring to award a prize to the head of the IAEA atomic energy commission for their worlk in trying to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, really be so wrong? Is it really just the American neo-Conservative right who are always right, while everyone else is always wrong?

What I wonder have the American right got against human rights? What is their ideal scenario? A world where no civil rights or liberties are protected under law and all forms of justice are summary? Because if it is, then that sounds more to me like a nightmare than an ideal.

GJ

Edited October 29, 2005 by raid517

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

Lol I think the only subject at hand here is the now open hostility of many in the American neo conservative establishment to Europe - and indeed to anything that is 'non-American'. (Again I think that is a relative term - as it seems it doesn't take much to be non American - and there is also a deep confusion among many on the right in America with the concept of being non American and being 'un-American').

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch do plenty of good work around the world, not just in Iraq, but in places like China, North Korea, Iran and so on - where there are genuine dissidents that need to be represented and who's plight would otherwise be ignored. They have an interest in seeing equality and justice for everyone. It is entirely appropriate that Saddam Husein should be given a fair trial - because we need to set an example to the world - and in particular to the Arab world - that no matter what you have done, in civilised countries you should always be entitled to a fair trial. How else would you have it? That as supposed victors (although that is also far from decided) we simply go there an assassinate everyone who we object to and who stands in our way? How is that any different from the way Saddam would have done things? How will this enable Iraq as a country to move on from it's previous state of barbarity and despotism?

If you simply kill people while only showing a token deference to international legal standards, how can the Iraqi people - or the world learn from this? In other words, if all you do is stage yet another show trial, where the outcome is guaranteed even before the trial starts, then in what way is this any kind of real progress at all?

There was a thorough investigation of this whole affair - and while his son - who was a relatively low ranking official within the UN was implicated Annan himself was entirely vindicated of all blame. Besides which, the American right often like to neglect that fact that some of the main players in the oil for food program, were among the biggest players in the US oil industry - and that estimates state that as much as 95% of the oil generated during the oil for food program was exported directly to the USA. Quite ironic don't you think, that you were probably at that time driving around with oil in your car which was generated by a program that you appear to hate so much?

Idiot! All that does is show that he - and probably this poster - does not have the slightest clue how the internet really works. How will the human rights commission ever have anything to do with how the internet is organised? The argument is for a similar governing body to the security council - with only a select few countries holding any sway and with entirely open standards - so that if anyone ever did try to mess around or tamper with anything, the other members would know about this instantly. This would be entirely separate from any other UN body. Moreover, the US may have been conceived of in the US - but the WWW which allows you to come here and regularly post such nonsense is an entirely European invention and was largely initially developed at Cern in Geneva. So at best 'the internet' as we know it, is at best a joint development. No one single country or individual can claim complete merit for anything. The only real reason the US wishes to hold on to exclusive control is so that it can maintain it's grip on power. It can both spy on it's friends and enemies alike and it can pull the plug too, whenever it so desires, But the internet/web as as it stands today, has long ago stopped being an exclusively American thing. The internet belongs to the world - and as such it should be placed in the hands of the world - and not just handed over to the exclusive control of one country.

Lol how short memory is my friend. If you will recall, America waited JUST AS LONG. And let me say it again, America waited JUST AS LONG. Indeed it waited something like nearly 6 years before taking any action - and even then it was simply due to a public outcry, when millions of people who like me could no longer turn their TVs on in the morning without being afraid that they might become physically ill because of what they saw finally snapped and pressured their governments into action. Left to the politicians, I have no doubt they would never have acted. And don't forget either (although it would appear that you already have) that the Balkan war was a joint NATO exercise - involving all of the members of NATO - and not just the Americans. Indeed if I recall correctly, there was even a large Russian contingent at that time - so it was hardly the lone American crusade that your (or your friend) paints it to be.

Anyway, from what I can tell this guy just despises anything that can be termed as representing individual 'human rights.' Can all of these bodies - including now it seems even the Nobel peace committee for daring to award a prize to the head of the IAEA atomic energy commission for their worlk in trying to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, really be so wrong? Is it really just the American neo-Conservative right who are always right, while everyone else is always wrong?

What I wonder have the American right got against human rights? What is their ideal scenario? A world where no civil rights or liberties are protected under law and all forms of justice are summary? Because if it is, then that sounds more to me like a nightmare than an ideal.

GJ

586738332[/snapback]

All I have to say is, very well said.

[3beanlimit]

Mr raid517...

Most excellent post!

Edited October 29, 2005 by 3beanlimit

[raid517]

Mmm... I do think it is worth backing up here a bit though... I mean, what is going on in the political right ATM? This is something I am hearing coming from them more and more:

Of course, global warming is a real problem, especially in Arctic regions. China has become the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases next to the U.S.

Never mind the fact that the Chinese still have a relatively tiny economy compared to that of America (although it is growing at a phenomenal rate) and that the US still accounts for more than 70% of the total world's greenhouse gas emissions - leaving only 30% to be divided up among China and the rest of the world. The interesting thing I am hearing is how many people on the right, in the political establishment, in the Churches and in the right wing media appear to be coming round to the idea that there might be something to all this climate change and global warming stuff after all.

As I said, where is this coming from? What is it's purpose? Is it because the US is experiencing an energy crisis - or because it wishes to find a way to move away from mass dependence on Mid East oil? Maybe they are finally realising that there might be a lot more economic benefit to all this energy efficiency business than they might have at first imagined?

Whatever their motivations are I don't trust them. But hey if it finally makes them get up off their butts and do something, then I'm all for it.

GJ

[Pencilmonkey]

I have my own views on this, but I feel that judging by the OP's posting record, it is little suited to post them here. Rumbl seldom, if ever responds to anybody discussing one of his 'cut and paste' posts from whichever right-wing tabloid currently tops the charts.

And simply to say that the largest issue that the UN had with the US invasion of Iraq was not thet the intent was to disarm or remove Hussein, but that the US refused to hold to it's own requirements.

The US initially demanded inspectors, these were allowed and were given a level of access that was, in the words of the chief inspector 'unprecedented'. However when the inspections did not yield the rich fruit upon which the US operation hinged, they proceeded apace. In the words of Rumsfeld at the time ""the area... that coalition forces control... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Keep in mind that this Iraq is also a country previously backed and supported by the white house, specifically in the 80's in a time when they also believed Hussein was practicing rights abuses and possessed chemical weapons. The fun image of the time was that of Rumsfeld being greeted by Hussein. A decent timeline of US support for Iraq, despite known links to anti-western activist groups can be found here

Some portion of the site details how and which US companies and departments were providing Iraq with the precursors to chemical and biological weaponry weaponry. These had been largely eliminated during the first Gulf war.

All I'm saying is that given the level of complicity here, a moral sounding is necessary and the US high command can hardly, given past actions, be used as an accurate barometer of moral justness.

[Starcom826]

It is of my opinion that given past actions, no government or organization of any kind can be used as an accurate barometer of moral justness which usually puts me at odds with both the right and left, because all their great organizations have already screwed up royally. I guess the point rumple was trying to make is, Europe's high moral ground thing is a farce, which is true. It just assumes that there is a different side that has a true claim to moral supremacy which is also a farce, because at this point no one has one.

[Edge00]

The interesting thing I am hearing is how many people on the right, in the political establishment, in the Churches and in the right wing media appear to be coming round to the idea that there might be something to all this climate change and global warming stuff after all.

I think you miss the point about what the author is saying about global warming. He isn't saying anything about whether it occurs or doesn't. He is commenting on the Kyoto agreement, which if I understand it correctly, we rejected it for two reasons.

1. We (United States of America) would get screwed royally

2. It wouldn't actually help Greenhouse gas emmisions, and could actually serve to make it worse

In other words, if all you do is stage yet another show trial, where the outcome is guaranteed even before the trial starts, then in what way is this any kind of real progress at all?

America definitely doesn't have saddam on trial, and if I remember correctly didn't some representatives raise a stink because they wanted him tried at the Hague?

The only real reason the US wishes to hold on to exclusive control is so that it can maintain it's grip on power. It can both spy on it's friends and enemies alike and it can pull the plug too, whenever it so desires, But the internet/web as as it stands today, has long ago stopped being an exclusively American thing. The internet belongs to the world - and as such it should be placed in the hands of the world - and not just handed over to the exclusive control of one country.

1. Don't pretend that if the EU controlled the internet they wouldn't try to have exclusive control over it and do exactly what we do with it. They only aspire to have the control that the U.S. currently has.

2. It was developed by the U.S. Army, and we do own it, we put the most amount of resources into it, we have the most invested in it, so why shouldn't we control it

3. It can't be handed over to one country unless America reliquishes control, nobody gave us control, its been ours all along

Don't confuse your priviledge to be on the internet with your assumed right to be on the internet. If people don't like the way we handle it, go make your own.

If you will recall, America waited JUST AS LONG. And let me say it again, America waited JUST AS LONG. Indeed it waited something like nearly 6 years before taking any action - and even then it was simply due to a public outcry, when millions of people who like me could no longer turn their TVs on in the morning without being afraid that they might become physically ill because of what they saw finally snapped and pressured their governments into action.

If you are gonna blame it all on the evil conservative right in America, then blame them all the way down. :angry: As I recall, being an American, Bill Clinton was president, member of the Liberal left. It was the members of the "warhawk" conservative constituent of congress that pressured him to act. You don't get to stradle the fence.

Let me get this straight, the conservative Americans are wrong for going to Iraq too soon for civil liberties, but they didn't protect civil liberties soon enough in Kosovo. And as for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, who is putting the biggest pressure on Iran right now? IAEA? Hardly.....

[Starcom826]

1. Don't pretend that if the EU controlled the internet they wouldn't try to have exclusive control over it and do exactly what we do with it. They only aspire to have the control that the U.S. currently has.

2. It was developed by the U.S. Army, and we do own it, we put the most amount of resources into it, we have the most invested in it, so why shouldn't we control it

3. It can't be handed over to one country unless America reliquishes control, nobody gave us control, its been ours all along

Don't confuse your priviledge to be on the internet with your assumed right to be on the internet. If people don't like the way we handle it, go make your own.

The internet thing is a joke. They're just trying to grab what the U.S. developed and has always since the dawn of networking controlled. Ok, so what about HTTP and physical networks? The U.S. doesn't control that. It's just media spin to make it seem like the U.S. has the capability to censor and bend the internet at its whim, which is pretty much as far from the truth as it gets.

[3beanlimit]

Let me get this straight, the conservative Americans are wrong for going to Iraq too soon for civil liberties, but they didn't protect civil liberties soon enough in Kosovo. And as for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, who is putting the biggest pressure on Iran right now?? IAEA? Hardly.....

586747927[/snapback]

Psssst....come closer.....You gotta quit listening to Fox News. We didn't go to Iraq over civil liberties...

[Edge00]

Psssst....come closer.....You gotta quit listening to Fox News. We didn't go to Iraq over civil liberties...

586748747[/snapback]

I would say that when the leader of your country is a Terrorist, and kills lots of his own people (hundreds of thousands) at a whim, that somebodies civil liberties are being squashed. Maybe civil liberties isnt the word, but rather human rights. We went to Iraq cuz Saddam is a madman.

ps. i dont watch foxnews, or anynews for that matter. Internet news is the way to go, i use google news.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Well "unprecedented" access, in old Blix's words, could mean anything from "I have access to everything I need" all the way to "compared to being ousted from the country I have unprecedented access".

Anyways I don't trust Blix, all throughout the ordeal he wasn't getting what he wanted, until the US shows it's plans to invade, then all of a sudden he's got access to everything and he's sure of thier innocence.

Truth be told I think Blix had just as big of an agenda as our government. As for our deeds of the '80's they were all different people with the exception of Rumsfield, who wasn't actually in the government at that time. Whether you like Bush or not you really can't pin the blame for what went down in the 80's on him, nor can you really claim there was some sort of timeline or anything.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

We went to Iraq cuz Saddam is a madman

586748816[/snapback]

Thats where it is wrong. Thats what the previous poster was talking about. You may have went for that reason, which is debatable. But the declared reason was originally WMD's.

[raid517]

I think you miss the point about what the author is saying about global warming. He isn't saying anything about whether it occurs or doesn't. He is commenting on the Kyoto agreement, which if I understand it correctly, we rejected it for two reasons.

1. We (United States of America) would get screwed royally

2. It wouldn't actually help Greenhouse gas emissions, and could actually serve to make it worse

America definitely doesn't have Saddam on trial, and if I remember correctly didn't some representatives raise a stink because they wanted him tried at the Hague?

1. Don't pretend that if the EU controlled the INTERNET they wouldn't try to have exclusive control over it and do exactly what we do with it. They only aspire to have the control that the U.S. currently has.

2. It was developed by the U.S. Army, and we do own it, we put the most amount of resources into it, we have the most invested in it, so why shouldn't we control it

3. It can't be handed over to one country unless America relinquishes control, nobody gave us control, its been ours all along

Now that is nonsense. The argument is for a joint governing body where we get to 'share' control of something that is no longer (although it may have originated in America) an exclusively American phenomenon. That is a governing body where no *one* country or region maintains exclusive control at all. Or perhaps. as is typical of Conservatives, you just do not understand the concept of 'sharing'?

Don't confuse your privilege to be on the Internet with your assumed right to be on the Internet. If people don't like the way we handle it, go make your own.

I do have a damned right to be on the Internet. I pay my service provider nearly $60 a month for this so called 'privilege'. If I can't get on the Internet after paying out that kind of cash, I'd sure as hell like to know why.

If you are gonna blame it all on the evil conservative right in America, then blame them all the way down.?:angry::?? As I recall, being an American, Bill Clinton was president, member of the Liberal left. It was the members of the "warhawk" conservative constituent of congress that pressured him to act. You don't get to straddle the fence.? Let me get this straight, the conservative Americans are wrong for going to Iraq too soon for civil liberties, but they didn't protect civil liberties soon enough in Kosovo. And as for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, who is putting the biggest pressure on Iran right now?? IAEA? Hardly.....

586747927[/snapback]

No I'm saying that Conservatives in general don't give a rat's fart about civil liberties to begin with - and that isn't why you went to Iraq, or even why there was any action taken in Bosnia. In Bosnia it was purely just public pressure, in what I believe was probably an election year (if I remember correctly) where the right felt there was some political capital to be gained from highlighting Clinton's inaction. In Iraq, it was just about adventurism and prospecting. The US wanted to set up a power base in the Mid East - and hey, the prospect of awarding a whole bunch of no compete oil contracts to exclusively American companies didn't seem like such a bad side effect either.

In any case this is beside the point, the real issue was that this guy was playing the blame game. The clear implication was that America was somehow morally superior to the rest of the world and that it led the world in taking decisive action - or that it acted while the rest of the world, and particularly Europe, stood by and did nothing - and this is clearly BS.

I do not like or trust many politicians but a little known fact about Tony Blair (and one that is to his eternal credit) is that when he was elected in 1997 he was prepared to commit the entire resources of the British Army to the conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo - even if no other NATO countries participated. Indeed when he was elected he personally went to Washington to plead with Clinton to act. Did he succeed? Was his influence in any way decisive in persuading Clinton to get up off his butt and finally do something? Who knows, but it is certainly at least one example of one other leader and one other country who was not prepared to just stand by and do nothing. Even if the Americans hadn't acted, I am quite certain that we would have had our own little 'coalition of the willing' (as we have in the past) where old alliances were revived and the traditional Anglo Saxon resolve to face down tyranny would be renewed, as the US stat on the sidelines (again as has happend in the past) while millions died and pondered whether or not it should participate.

Nonetheless, it probably isn't helpful or healthy to try to apportion blame to any one group or individual. The whole Bosnian thing was not just a stain on America, or on Europe - but on all of humanity. There were period thought that time when I would wake up in the morning and wonder having seen some of the things I saw then if I could remain sane though out the day.

The inaction of the world though out that period was utterly unforgivable and will stand as a blight against our generation for a great many years to come. No one of us will ever truly be free of blame.

And as for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, who is putting the biggest pressure on Iran right now?? IAEA? Hardly.....

And hardly America either it would seem. Why else would senior members of the American government openly state that military action against Iran was 'out of the question'?

Personally from what I can see, the sooner the world agrees to flatten all Iranian nuclear facilities the better. Unfortunately doing so would incur the wrath of the Shia population in Iraq - and could lead to the US getting it's butt seriously kicked - so while the US administration is busy chasing ghosts and oil in Iraq, Iran sits and patiently waits, growing more powerful every day and laughing at the world.

America definitely doesn't have Saddam on trial, and if I remember correctly didn't some representatives raise a stink because they wanted him tried at the Hague?

Yes they wanted him tried at an international court in the Hague that conformed to international standards - not in some American backed American inspired show trial where the only possible outcome was a bullet in the head. Does anyone here really doubt what the American government would like to do to Saddam? Does anyone doubt that the Iraqi judges and the entire Iraqi legal system are not aware of this? Does anyone doubt for a split second what the outcome is going to be? George W. wants Saddam dead. and die he will.

What other possible definition of a show trial could there be? You might as well hand him the bullet so that he can be absolutely clear about what's coming.

GJ

Edited October 31, 2005 by raid517

[Edge00]

Nonetheless, it probably isn't helpful or healthy to try to apportion blame to any one group or individual. The whole Bosnian thing was not just a stain on America, or on Europe - but on all of humanity. There were period thought that time when I would wake up in the morning and wonder having seen some of the things I saw then if I could remain sane though out the day.

The inaction of the world though out that period was utterly unforgivable and will stand as a blight against our generation for a great many years to come. No one of us will ever truly be free of blame.

586751065[/snapback]

I can actually agree with you on something, amazingly. After we fix whats wrong then lets figure out how to prevent it. It does no good to blame someone now. We need to focus on making it better.

I do have a damned right to be on the Internet. I pay my service provider nearly $60 a month for this so called 'privilege'. If I can't get on the Internet after paying out that kind of cash, I'd sure as hell like to know why.

Still confusing rights with privilege. If its a right why do you have to pay for it? I don't have to pay for the right to vote, or the right to speak what I believe (In America anyway, I can't speak for other countries). I do however have to pay to have a legit car to drive that passes inspection, so that I can exercise my privilege to drive. You do have the right to recieve goods/services for payment, you also have the right to not issue payment and not recieve goods. If you don't want to pay $60 ($ in uk? :huh: ) a month then don't pay it, but you won't have internet either. Not a right. So before the internet existed were the rights of those living in that time being infringed upon? Or what about people who can't afford $60 a month? Do we need to pay for them to have internet so their rights aren't being infringed? That is a dangerous mindset, ....my computer isn't fast enough to play the latest pc game, the game company owes me a new computer so I can play their game...... Maybe we could pay for underprivileged people to have internet access and and if that would further their development as a person that would be cool to help someone else (read: compassion) but they don't have the right to have internet access in their home.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Edge00

[Edge00]

It is right to buy services as I see fit. And if the US ever did pull the plug, then yes I would consider it a violation of my rights - and I would seek to press my government to provide an alternative. The Internet (or the WWW which is actually what most people use) is now a reality of human existence - and a new phase in human development - every bit as much as the printing press was. So I would say access is a right - just as much as freedom of speech should be a right for everyone too. The US can (nor should it aspire to) no more own the right to the to the technology of the Internet than it should feel it has the right to claim exclusive control of the freedom of speech, or indeed of the freedom of the press. As I have said these things belong to the world - and they should be placed squarely in the hands of the world, rather than of one single country.

GJ

586752502[/snapback]

Wow that is a scary mindset........ I would call that entitlement and that's not a good thing. That is communism. Redistribution of wealth.

[raid517]

It is right to buy services as I see fit. And if the US ever did pull the plug, then yes I would consider it a violation of my rights - and I would seek to press my government to provide an alternative. The Internet (or the WWW which is actually what most people use) is now a reality of human existence - and a new phase in human development - every bit as much as the printing press was. So I would say access is a right - just as much as freedom of speech should be a right for everyone too. The US can (nor should it aspire to) no more own the right to the to the technology of the Internet than it should feel it has the right to claim exclusive control of the freedom of speech, or indeed of the freedom of the press. As I have said these things belong to the world - and they should be placed squarely in the hands of the world, rather than of one single country.

GJ

[raid517]

Then say it wasn't the Internet, say that it was the printing presses that had just been invented. Do you think the US should maintain control of them?

Clearly it is a ridiculous idea. I see no difference in this case at all.

I would call that entitlement and that's not a good thing. That is communism. Redistribution of wealth.

586752519[/snapback]

That is just nonsense. My ISP is a private company, since when does buying goods and services from a private company equate to communism? Or is it more the case that (again like many republicans) you simply equate anything you disagree with as 'communism?' Do you even have any idea of what communism is? No one is suggesting access should be free - although it should certainly be freely available through schools, libraries, public buildings and so on.

I happen to think one country having exclusive control of the Internet may be potentially harmful to my own countries economy - and to the economy of the world as a whole as it places too much control in the hands of one nation. It is the exact opposite of what what genuine free market economics should entail. If anything it is the US that is behaving like a communist/dictatorial and anti-competitive state rather than the rest of the world.

GJ

Edited November 1, 2005 by raid517

[Edge00]

Then say it wasn't the Internet, say that it was the printing presses that had just been invented. Do you think the US should maintain control of them?

Clearly it is a ridiculous idea. I see no difference in this case at all.

That is just nonsense. My ISP is a private company, since when does buying goods and services from a private company equate to communism? Or is it more the case that (again like many republicans) you simply equate anything you disagree with as 'communism?' Do you even have any idea of what communism is? No one is suggesting access should be free - although it should certainly be freely available through schools, libraries, public buildings and so on.

I happen to think one country having exclusive control of the Internet may be potentially harmful to my own countries economy - and to the economy of the world as a whole as it places too much control in the hands of one nation. It is the exact opposite of what what genuine free market economics should entail. If anything it is the US that is behaving like a communist/dictatorial and anti-competitive state rather than the rest of the world.

GJ

586752541[/snapback]

I think you are just irritated that a place that you don't particularly like is in control of something that you do particularly like, but that is just my opinion.

I believe it is you who don't understand free market economics. You are actually saying that the Internet isn't property. So how can anyone claim to own it since it is not a piece of property? and since nobody owns why should someone get to control it on their own? I think that premise is wrong, because it was developed and is currently owned. Let me preface what I am about to say with, I dont think this should happen, but....The internet (as I understand its workings) could actually be sold. This seems to be a characteristic of ownership. Control wasn't gained by force or money, it has always been under control by one group. If I own something I have the right to do with it as I please, and I think the U.S. government is the same way, and you can't stand it. :shifty: So you try to rationalize in your mind why they shouldn't be able to control, to try to rasp it from their clutches, or at least set up a condition where it would be morally just to do so. As the author of the article up for debate so eloquently put it "in-your-sleep moralizing". Come on bring on the old and tired rhetoric of anti-McCarthyism, its funny to see it being used again.

[Mr. Golden Deal]

The U.S. does own the 'backbone' servers, true, and they initially developed the ARPAnet. However, pretty much everything that we assosiate with "the Internet" nowadays (such as the world wide web) was not the exclusive work of Americans, and Americans don't hold the rights to any of these innovations. If the U.S. feels like picking up its ball and going home because they want to monopolize the Internet, they could justifiably only take back pre-90's level of development.

Let me put it this way: do we have to pay fees to Germany and submit to German censorship and laws for the books we buy and read, simply because the printing press was invented in Germany? Not to mention that many significant improvements to the method of printing were developed outside of Gutenberg's time?

[raid517]

Like I said there are bigger issues at steak rather than petty ownership or regional power politics. It's about allowing countries to have a say in their own economic development. Why should something of such profound economic interest to all of the world be placed in the exclusive control of one country? Don't forget that by 2010, it is predicted that as much as 40% of the world's trade will be conducted on-line. Whether you agree with it or not, that is of profound interest and importance to many countries other than just the US. The world is certainly bigger than just America.

Anyway, it is always the same old nonsense from the right - just because I don't agree with something they say, that makes me 'anti-American'. Just for the record, I am not anti-American - but I am very much 'anti-them'.

In any case I doubt you really understand the Internet, particularly if you can make assertions about the Internet being sold. Sure Cisco might sell their business - they might even shut down their servers, but that is just servers. Servers can be replaced. Whether you like it or not the Internet as an idea, or a concept, or as a reality isn't going away, no matter what the US does or doesn't do. It was designed so that ultimately it couldn't be shut down, remember? You can no more close it down than you can univent books.

This is an argument about standards more than anything, about who governs those standards and who as a say over how the technology is developed to best utilise those standards. It is not an argument about who gets the power to turn the switch on and off, as though it were some kind of crude light switch that some lone technican can flip on and off at will.

As the author of the article up for debate so eloquently put it "in-your-sleep moralising

Mmm, well I guess we are all impressed by our own particular levels of oratory and eloquence. Personally however I have encountered babbling baboons at a zoo who were able to string together a much more eloquent and cohesive argument in defence of their viewpoint, than this fellow was able to do in defence of his. Forgive me for wondering out loud, but perhaps it is possible that you might be just a little bit too easily impressed?

GJ

Edited November 1, 2005 by raid517

[rumbleph1$h]

Forgive me for wondering out loud, but perhaps it is possible that you might be just a little bit too easily impressed?

586752758[/snapback]

Forgive me for thinking out loud, but perhaps it's the haughty, condescending, arrogant "elites" such as yourself that give Europeans such a bad name in the U.S. lately... :x :sleep:

[raid517]

Lol, and what makes you think your name is any good in the world right now either?

GJ

[raid517]

I have no idea at all what you are referring to - nor frankly do I care.

GJ