DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Discover Freedom
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 1247, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/11/2003 11:00:09 AM · #201
Originally posted by achiral:

Question for you guys now that we are talking about freedom and the taking away of liberties by the government:

Do you support the right to bear arms in the United States? Many people seem to have no problem wanting to take away that liberty, and there isn't the same kind of public outcry as there is when people find out that library records are being monitored.


I thought the whole point of the right to bear arms was that if the goverment somehow because oppressive (imagane that) then the people could over turn it. But with currnt day gun control and the techinical advances that the military and poliece have over the people, it seems that this right is meaningless any more. It seems that the only reason to own a gun is to hunt and "protect" yourself from the bad guys (which chances are your children will find it first).

So i don't really know where i stand on the idea of guns.:(

Message edited by author 2003-03-11 11:08:46.
03/11/2003 11:18:26 AM · #202
Originally posted by achiral:

i think you run into problems when you try to create a society where countries aren't allowed to make unilateral decisions because of international bureaucracy and power mongering.


I think you're forgetting the reasons why the UN was set up. In the 20th century, two world wars occurred because countries made unilateral decisions. To me, the world we have today looks like the powderkeg that existed prior to WWI. Back then, the Balkans were an area of constant conflict (in fact, WWI was essentiall the third Balkan war, following on the heels of two earlier wars that occurred over the 20 years before WWI). The assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian anarchist was the trigger for the war. It was followed by actions that got Austria-Hungary and Germany involved. Alliances between European countries sucked them into the conflict, so it spread. An arms race had been occurring between England and Germany, which meant that they were able to do a lot of damage to each other. Then, because of the empires held by Germany, France and England, the conflict spread even further...

Right now, the UN is there to stop these things from happening. The ability for the world's most powerful countries to negotiate means that they don't just jump straight into conflict. There are so many possible scenarios that could lead this particular conflict to spread. I hope the UN can prevent it from occurring. If not... those who survive will learn a new lesson, I guess.
03/11/2003 11:21:10 AM · #203
ok that's fine, i just think the UN is pointless, especially when you give countries veto powers, including the US.

i'm not sure if you support the UN or not, but your analysis paints a bleak picture of its ability to handle wartime situations.

Message edited by author 2003-03-11 11:23:04.
03/11/2003 11:42:45 AM · #204
In order fot the UN to work, the orginization must be respected.
03/11/2003 11:51:27 AM · #205
In order for it to be respected it must enforce it's own resolutions.
03/11/2003 11:52:15 AM · #206
I beleive it does, just not with the fury of a pissed off US.
03/11/2003 11:53:23 AM · #207
it's not working right now though, at a turning point in history. i don't understand why they want to have control over war decisions anyway. countries should make up their own minds about that. polling suggests that 66% of people in america support war in iraq. why should france's jockeying for world power get in the way of that? the UN will only work if people are impartial to the task at hand. it is obvious that most times other motives are brought to the table, by other countries and by the US

besides, the UN has no power to stop a unilateral decision anyway, by any country

Message edited by author 2003-03-11 11:54:22.
03/11/2003 11:54:47 AM · #208
Geocide,
Well from my earlier posts you can see that I disagree.

Message edited by author 2003-03-11 11:55:49.
03/11/2003 12:01:17 PM · #209
Originally posted by Geocide:

I beleive it does, just not with the fury of a pissed off US.


How is any international body going to effectively give a nation ruled by a dictator rules to abide by? When has it worked before?

Message edited by author 2003-03-11 12:03:10.
03/11/2003 01:59:59 PM · #210
Originally posted by achiral:

it's not working right now though, at a turning point in history. i don't understand why they want to have control over war decisions anyway. countries should make up their own minds about that. polling suggests that 66% of people in america support war in iraq. why should france's jockeying for world power get in the way of that? the UN will only work if people are impartial to the task at hand. it is obvious that most times other motives are brought to the table, by other countries and by the US

besides, the UN has no power to stop a unilateral decision anyway, by any country


Yeah... In this day and age, no war includes just one conutry. It's always a tangeled web of diplomatic relationships with millions and sometimes billions of dollars in the balance.

Somthing just occured to me. If IRAQ is violating the UN resolution why has the US decided to take it upon itself to be the sole enforcer, espically when the UN dosen't support the US.

In other words, imaging i (UN) lay down a ground rule for my child (Iraq). My child (iraq) decides not to follow the rule and i'm working on that situation. Then another child of mine (US) barges in and delares the problem his own.

This is little to do with the us (directly, at least) and i really do thing we are sliding very far back in time. Well, i guess we'll go back to McCarthyism...

Message edited by author 2003-03-11 14:00:48.
03/11/2003 02:01:43 PM · #211
Originally posted by achiral:

Originally posted by Geocide:

I beleive it does, just not with the fury of a pissed off US.


How is any international body going to effectively give a nation ruled by a dictator rules to abide by? When has it worked before?


Who has the right to decide how another country is run?
03/11/2003 02:11:47 PM · #212
Originally posted by Geocide:

Originally posted by achiral:

Originally posted by Geocide:

I beleive it does, just not with the fury of a pissed off US.


How is any international body going to effectively give a nation ruled by a dictator rules to abide by? When has it worked before?


Who has the right to decide how another country is run?


exactly, why should the UN try to control US foreign policy? also aren't all these resolutions basically "rules" that are created to get Iraq to act?

Message edited by author 2003-03-11 14:15:35.
03/11/2003 03:13:26 PM · #213
"exactly, why should the UN try to control US foreign policy?"

Why should the US control how Iraq is run? The UN does have jursidiction over Iraq, the US dosen't.
03/11/2003 03:41:43 PM · #214
You're exactly right the US has no control over Iraq. The UN tries but is going to fail, even after they passed 1441. Iraq doesn't even have control over Iraq. Tell me how the US has gone outside the will of the UN SO FAR. I can't see any of that going on. The UN is more and more becoming in irrelevant body because of failures to unite on issues like this. The US is part of that as well. The US itself has used more than 70 vetoes since the UN started. I think that's rediculous. The problems with the UN are starting to become more evident through this crisis. Even with vetoes, countries still go outside the UN, this includes the US and most other security council member, making the decision to go around the UN for better or worse. For example in Kosovo, instead of Clinton allowing a resolution for the use of force to be vetoed by France or Russia or China, he went through NATO to end the genocide there. Or the situation with Rwanda in 1994 where the UN decided not to act militarily and thousands upon thousands of people were slaughtered. Ideally yeah the UN would be great. I think it needs to be revamped for the current world order.
03/11/2003 04:59:37 PM · #215
Wow, if you facts are true, it seems that i agree with you. It's too bad the UN doesn't work...Sounds to me that it needs a overhaul.
03/11/2003 05:01:07 PM · #216
This must be the DPC world record thread!!! :-)
03/11/2003 05:23:20 PM · #217
And here's a forum (on another board) that's JUST for debating politics.

Talk Politics

Those of you who enjoy being able to debate issues may enjoy some of the threads on other political issues of the moment.

(No I am not being sarcastic... I just spent an enjoyable session reading through several threads there).
03/11/2003 06:32:41 PM · #218
Two things I have learned today after reading several articles about past decisions.

1. The UN set a precedent by allowing NATO to handle the Kosovo crisis without backlash, which has led to today where countries feel like they can invade other countries in humanitarian crises.

2. By having countries on the security council who will always veto resolutions for the use of force, countries like Iraq feel no rush to comply with any UN resolution. Why would they, they know France has their back, even if France doesn't support what Iraq is doing, they are so against force that Saddam has realized that it seems the UN isn't ever going to approve an attack on him again.
03/12/2003 12:12:55 AM · #219
Originally posted by achiral:

Question for you guys now that we are talking about freedom and the taking away of liberties by the government:

Do you support the right to bear arms in the United States? Many people seem to have no problem wanting to take away that liberty, and there isn't the same kind of public outcry as there is when people find out that library records are being monitored.


Excellent question, achiral. I'd bet a lot who have the illusion that somehow our liberties are being taken away from us, in the fight against terrorism, would NOT agree that the 2nd Amendent should also be protected. It's so hypocritical.

It's the same hypocritical stance Democrats and Liberals (in general) take against the war against Iraq... they oppose it strongly and vocally, but, where were these same people when Clinton was bombing the Serbs in Kosovo? Clinton did it to cover up his "Monica" problems and you didn't here one word from liberals as children in Kosovo were being bombed and killed. Isn't that odd? :)

03/12/2003 12:21:31 AM · #220
Originally posted by achiral:

Two things I have learned today after reading several articles about past decisions.

1. The UN set a precedent by allowing NATO to handle the Kosovo crisis without backlash, which has led to today where countries feel like they can invade other countries in humanitarian crises.


It's really not true to say they allowed NATO to "handle it". The UN ran the refugee program and put peacekeepers in after the NATO campaign ended. The same kind of thing happened in East Timor. Australia got together an international force called INTERFET to protect the East Timorese and secure the border with West Timor, then the UN sent peacekeepers in and INTERFET went home.

The UN is there for the long haul in humanitarian crises. Look at their role right now in Iraq. They organise and oversee the sanctions and the oil for food program, and they aministrate Northern Iraq as an autonomous region. Meanwhile, NATO patrols the no fly zones, and has in fact flown hundreds of bombing missions in Iraq since 1998 (not many people know that there has been almost constant military action there over the past 5 years). One thing I didn't know about the current weapons inspectors too is that this group was created right after the old ones were disbanded. Blix has been the chief weapons inspector for 4 years now. They've been working from the outside, monitoring what they can, for all that time.

Check out this timeline of UN peacekeeping operations since 1948. It's amazing how many conflicts they were involved in during the 1990s!

Originally posted by achiral:

2. By having countries on the security council who will always veto resolutions for the use of force, countries like Iraq feel no rush to comply with any UN resolution. Why would they, they know France has their back, even if France doesn't support what Iraq is doing, they are so against force that Saddam has realized that it seems the UN isn't ever going to approve an attack on him again.


What makes you think they always veto resolutions for the use of force? France were behind the Gulf War. If Saddam invaded Kuwait again, they'd support force against him. It really seems as though you think your government can do no wrong, and if other countries oppose it, they're just being stubborn or irrational.
03/12/2003 12:31:14 AM · #221
Originally posted by ChrisW123:


It's the same hypocritical stance Democrats and Liberals (in general) take against the war against Iraq... they oppose it strongly and vocally, but, where were these same people when Clinton was bombing the Serbs in Kosovo? Clinton did it to cover up his "Monica" problems and you didn't here one word from liberals as children in Kosovo were being bombed and killed. Isn't that odd? :)


I don't know about what happened in your country, but at that time there were many protests against the bombing in Australia. However, most people on the left here who disagreed with the bombing did so because they though ground troops would be more appropriate. The reasoning was that they could cause less collateral damage, wouldn't leave unexploded cluster bombs on the ground, and would not damage the environment/infrastructure of Kosovo (thus having less of an economic impact on Kosovo's future).

Do you really think people who are against this war are against ALL war?
03/12/2003 12:36:04 AM · #222
besides the gulf war, when have they approved military action. i gave you that one. i'm not claiming the US is free of guilt at all. read my last few posts. i am just bringing to people's attention instances where there were grave consequences to the UN's lack of action, whether it was by a veto from the US or anyone else. my point basically goes back to the UN needs to be respected, and unfortunately that means instilling fear in the minds of dictatorial regimes, which it seems the UN is unwilling to back up its words about. just as you think I find that the US can do know wrong, you seem to take the position that they can do no right. i know this isn't true because i think you are an intelligent person, but please don't take me for a blind American

Message edited by author 2003-03-12 00:38:29.
03/12/2003 12:45:50 AM · #223
Originally posted by ChrisW123:

It's the same hypocritical stance Democrats and Liberals (in general) take against the war against Iraq... they oppose it strongly and vocally, but, where were these same people when Clinton was bombing the Serbs in Kosovo? Clinton did it to cover up his "Monica" problems and you didn't here one word from liberals as children in Kosovo were being bombed and killed. Isn't that odd? :)

I don't want to actually be classified as a "liberal" as I think they're not too different from (nor less dangerous than) so-called conservatives right now, but I will freely admit that I believe Mr. Clinton's decisions to have been influenced by the need for domestic damage control (in both senses of the word).

However, for the most part, there would have been no need for that influence, had the GOP placed the welfare of the country and the will of the voters ahead of their own lust for power, publicity and state-mandated prudery.
03/12/2003 02:47:53 AM · #224
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

It's the same hypocritical stance Democrats and Liberals (in general) take against the war against Iraq... they oppose it strongly and vocally, but, where were these same people when Clinton was bombing the Serbs in Kosovo? Clinton did it to cover up his "Monica" problems and you didn't here one word from liberals as children in Kosovo were being bombed and killed. Isn't that odd? :)

I don't want to actually be classified as a "liberal" as I think they're not too different from (nor less dangerous than) so-called conservatives right now, but I will freely admit that I believe Mr. Clinton's decisions to have been influenced by the need for domestic damage control (in both senses of the word).

However, for the most part, there would have been no need for that influence, had the GOP placed the welfare of the country and the will of the voters ahead of their own lust for power, publicity and state-mandated prudery.


Are you saying that if Bush were motivated to go to war by the "need for domestic damage control" in regard to some Left-Wing concocted problem then this war would be more palatable to you?
03/12/2003 03:27:37 AM · #225
Originally posted by rcrawford:


Are you saying that if Bush were motivated to go to war by the "need for domestic damage control" in regard to some Left-Wing concocted problem then this war would be more palatable to you?

Not at all!
One of the reasons it is so especially unpalatable to me right now is precisely because I believe it motivated by his (or his handlers') desire to divert attention from his utter failure to accomplish his primary goal, to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility..." only then to "provide for the common defense..."

It occurs to me that it is quite possible that Mr. Bush has not read the Constitution he has sworn to uphold...I'm not sure I've read every word myself! But at least I know where to look it up.

Caption swiped from a cartoon:
"Oh, Kenny, if I'd have known you were going to get away with it I wouldn't have sold the furniture..."
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 01/28/2021 10:52:56 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/28/2021 10:52:56 AM EST.