Rogue states.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 11:57 am

Originally posted by der Moench

Weasel - ?! I did not think you were interested in political discussions here in SYM? (Besides running for President, of course. )

It was a slip

(Plus the main reason..... I have always had a job (from the age of 14 till today) and would like to see the reasons why the government should have to make sure I have one.)

Alienbob · Post by **Alienbob** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 12:18 pm

Well as we all know, the illuminati and the majestic 12 are really the ones ruling the world. you cant say the US is a rogue nation when the government is really just run by private corporations (just like nearly every government on the planet.) The US government sucks, but then so do the governments of Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc. there is no such thing as a 'rogue nation' when they are all really being run by the same people.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:00 pm

Re: Topic = US as rogue state

Originally posted by Lazarus
@C Elegans: Global warming is off-topic here. I am preparing a PM for you, which you should have within the hour.

Sorry for straying off the original topic. Thanks for your PM Lazarus, I will read the link you provided during the evening.

posted by Weasel
Someone please start a new thread about this..I want to see where it leads to.

If somebody else has not already done it, I will start a new thread as soon as I've read Lazarus links.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:46 pm

Sorry - still OT

Originally posted by C Elegans
If somebody else has not already done it, I will start a new thread as soon as I've read Lazarus links.

@C Elegans: Maybe I am mis-interpreting your intent here - are you proposing to start a thread on global warming? I think Weasel is looking for one on state intervention in employment/education.

@Weasel: actually, I have argued this point in a number of threads. We can start a new one, or I can direct you to some old ones.

@Obsidian: You started this thread, and have not yet posted anything more ... do you have any further opinions on what you have heard here?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:50 pm

Re: Sorry - still OT

Originally posted by Lazarus
@C Elegans: Maybe I am mis-interpreting your intent here - are you proposing to start a thread on global warming? I think Weasel is looking for one on state intervention in employment/education.

? I must have misunderstood totally what Weasel was referring to, I thought we wanted a new thread about global warming.

@Weasel: Just to clear things out, what was you wished a new thread about?

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 3:07 pm

Argh! I can't stop posting OT!

@CE: Weasel's last post indicates:

Originally posted by Weasel
(Plus the main reason..... I have always had a job (from the age of 14 till today) and would like to see the reasons why the government should have to make sure I have one.)

As I say: I think he is looking for a government/employment thread. I will post in such a thread. I will NOT post in a global warming thread. You have my opinion of global warming (in your in-box), but I do not feel like battling the entire forum over this subject, and throwing links and statistics back and forth. I just see too much flame potential in that.

Sorry.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 7:28 pm

The crowd pauses in wonder!!

Originally posted by C Elegans

? I must have misunderstood totally what Weasel was referring to, I thought we wanted a new thread about global warming.

@Weasel: Just to clear things out, what was you wished a new thread about?

Leave it to me to cause mass confusion.

Lazarus caught what I was meaning...but don't hold this against him.

Originally posted by Lazarus
government/employment thread.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 8:39 pm

[If CE and Lazarus agree, I'll move their respective posts to the beginning of a new Global Warming thread.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 10:43 pm

First off @ Laz, I've been away for a couple days, haven't had the chance to return prior to this. I never have a lack of opinions.

@Ode to a Grasshopper. Your friend wouldn't happen to be the infamous Alex Sandell would it?

To make very clear, the International rights of the child is a treaty that garuntees every child to the RIGHT to an education, basic health care etc. The government has no role in it beyond ensuring the parents provide that. Basically the intent is to make sure children are safe and educated. That's it. That's also off topic.

@ C.E.
You are right. Rogue state is a term that has recently been "demonized" (good word).

This topic was, by no means, meant as a bash to the United States of America. It does many good things in the world, and many bad ones. As HLD pointed out, all nations are after their own best interests. That is only logical.
However, my point to this thread was the the U.S.A. has been making decisions without regard for the rest of the world AT ALL. Allies and enemies alike. No other nation in the world could get away with it, but the US can by force alone, and I am deeply troubled by it.
The United Nations was developed, the brain child of an American President actually, (woodie I believe) and, as a whole, America has never wanted any part in it. Why? Combination of self righteousness and a deep desire to be completly independent of any thing else. I would consider that to be a bad thing.
Global Warming is a factor of this topic, but It'd be better spent on a whole new topic, as would education/working and the government, and so is the Ballistic missile defence system.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 11:53 pm

America doesn't act in "it's" interests, which seems to imply that the policies of the US government are somehow determined by the general population, but rather in the interests of it's ruling elite. Anything "good" that comes out of the actions of the US is merely a coincidence or committed for it's propaganda value. The tiny evidence here against America as a "Rouge State" is only the smallest part of a general history of working against democracy, freedom, and human rights worldwide. Bush, like every other US president since WWII, should be tried for crimes against humanity.

And not providing housing and education for people of the third world is a little different from funding and supplying death squads to murder and repress the population, directing coups placing fascist generals in power, or training CIA henchmen in the "art" of torturing peasants, labor leaders, and any human rights activists in general.

name five other countries that have a government-sponsored program like the Peace Corps, and name one country who sends more people abroad for projects like the Peace Corps than the United States. I'll still bet that the US is first in helping people overseas.

The "Peace Corps" are little more than American propagandists overseas--as Bush has admitted when advocating increased aid to the organisation.

And the US as unilateral: so? Personally, I find Bush far too willing to deal with nations I find morally repugnant, and think he should be a good deal more unilateral in his outlook.

"Morally repugnant"! Their governments dare direct the resources of the nation from western investors to the starving and impoverished population! Bush, intervene!

And I'm terribly surprised someone like Lazarus would oppose the concept that global warming is being worsened by corporations and the richest elites. After all, you have to keep those that plunder the world for profit at the rest of the global population's expense off the hook, right?

US aid=weapons.

And there's an interesting correllation between US "aid" and human rights abuses.

I will not try to dispute what has happened in Central America. However, I will comment that, just because it happened that way there does not mean that is how it is in other places. Remember, Bin Laden is not the only radical religious person.

Yeah, think of the fascist elements of the Bush administration!

Notice that we didn't care if Saddam killed the Kurds; we were simply protecting our precious oil supplies in Kuwait.

And note that it was when Saddam was most powerful and threatening that he was receiving the most US support.

Of course the Leviathan must take care of the heath and education of his childrens. I don't understand your ultra-liberalism(almost near to anarquism).

Anarchism is a revolutionary ideal to establish a classless, stateless society; using it in reference to the entirely reactionary concepts of "libertarianism" is distortion of the term.

An article on Bush's actions on global warming: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb20 ... -f23.shtml

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:19 am

@Mediev, is there a nation among the top ten economic powerhouses in the world whose interactions with other nations you generally respect?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:34 am

@Weasel: Thanks for the explanation

I, Lazarus and others discussed hte topic of how much the government should take responsibility for previously. Personally, I don't really have anything to add unless specific questions or specific arguments turn up. Here is a thread:
Education free or not

@Fable: Lazarus does not wish to discuss global warming on the board. Should he change his mind, you are welcome to move my posts, though.

Regarding the US and the term "rouge state": The term rouge state is obviously a simple way of labeling a state the US conceives as a threat. The term is catchy and easy to understand, and like most political rhetorics (read: BS) it was most likely also aimed to suit the media. The term started to get popular in the politicians vocabulary at a time where a certain message was to be delivered to the people, ie when the politicians want people to think in a certain way.

Rouge state is today referring to any state that the US thinks is a threat to the nation. It has also been connected to "state terrorism". However, by using the current definition of the term, any country would obviously call any other coutry that they perceive as a threat to their culture, values and security for a rouge state, so the term is rather meaningless.

Back to the US - long ago I posted a list of all the international treaties the Bush administration had backed out of at that point. You can see it here

Apart from the treaties, I think the US have acted immorally in several international as well as national issues during the 20th century. South America, Vietnam, the Middle east just to mention a few. However, as HLD points out, looking back in history, I find no other powerful nations who have acted better. Japan, the European colonial powers, the Soviet union, China, the Persian empire, the Bysantic, Rome, what have you. They all share the feature of acting in their own interests on the cost of others, conquering or exploiting other less powerful nations or peoples, etc. I'm not suggesting the US should be singles out as acting worse than other superpowers have done, but still, this doesn't make it any better since "two wrongs don't make a right".

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:50 am

Originally posted by mediev
Yeah, think of the fascist elements of the Bush administration!

Could you elaborate?

As I have mentioned often before, I avoid the news and care little for politics. The comment of mine to which you were replying was specifically refering to the actions of missionaries and such which are sent out by the churches, not by the Government.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:28 am

Originally posted by Obsidian
First off @ Laz, I've been away for a couple days, haven't had the chance to return prior to this. I never have a lack of opinions.
<snip>
This topic was, by no means, meant as a bash to the United States of America. It does many good things in the world, and many bad ones. As HLD pointed out, all nations are after their own best interests. That is only logical.
However, my point to this thread was the the U.S.A. has been making decisions without regard for the rest of the world AT ALL. Allies and enemies alike. No other nation in the world could get away with it, but the US can by force alone, and I am deeply troubled by it.

And my point is that the unilateralism of the US (and, as I said, I think it should be a good deal MORE unilateral) is not necessarily a bad thing. I believe that the US has reason to be unilateral, and should not be demonized simply because it has a unique place in the world right now.

Originally posted by Obsidian
The United Nations was developed, the brain child of an American President actually, (woodie I believe) and, as a whole, America has never wanted any part in it. Why? Combination of self righteousness and a deep desire to be completly independent of any thing else. I would consider that to be a bad thing. <snip>

I believe you are correct about Woodrow Wilson (wasn’t it to be called the League of Nations back then?). You can find my opinion of the UN in other threads, too. In short: I find any organization that gives equal status to China, the US, the (former) USSR, Britain, and France to be a moral inversion.

You are correct to say that the UN child thing and global warming are off-topic. Delacroix, I see, has started a topic relevant to the former, so drop on by and we can discuss it at length. Global warming I will leave you all to debate.

Originally posted by mediev
"Morally repugnant"! Their governments dare direct the resources of the nation from western investors to the starving and impoverished population! Bush, intervene!

I care not one whit what independent nations do with their resources, as long as they respect the rights of their citizens, and the rights of the global population. In so far as they fail to do that, and in so far as the US continues to deal with them (China, anyone?), I find the US in a morally repugnant position.

Originally posted by fable
@Mediev, is there a nation among the top ten economic powerhouses in the world whose interactions with other nations you generally respect?

Good question, fable. Though I would expand it to ask: is there any nation in any time of history which you have any respect for, mediev? (This, too, is off-topic – but feel free to start a new thread, if you like.)

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 9:31 am

Not to bash our good friend Mediev, but if you detest the United States so much, why do you live in california?

@CE. Interesting idea, that the world is just following a cycle of mega powers, because there has always been one power stronger than the rest, most of us just haven't seen it because of the cold war, where, arguably, the USSR was stronger.
@Lazaras.

I find any organization that gives equal status to China, the US, the (former) USSR, Britain, and France to be a moral inversion.

I find that to be morally inverted! They had all fought in the Second World War, and I believe Germany should be on there too, but so be it. A body had to be created on the UN purely concerned with Security. It had to be an odd number to break ties, and the 5 militarily strongest nations, France got thrown in for good measure. Ok, maybe I'll agree with you on France, they last the war in 24 hrs. But to their credit, they had one hell of a resistance. I think it has to be understood that the Security Council you mention is composed of the "victors" (I use the term loosely) of WW2. If you look further back, at WW1, you see something a little interesting.

Going into the First World War, Great Britain was a mega power. Brittania ruled the seas. And since the seas were the primary mode of transport, Britain had a firm handle on trade, rather like the US's powers now over global economy. However, during WW1, G.B. took the brunt of the war economically, and in the lives of their people. They had almost recovered when Hitler struck, and by the end of the second world war, they were hurt. London was, in some places, bombed to ruins, a good fifth of their population was dead or injured, and they had spent Billions on the war. And they won! Germany, the other mega power, was hurt worse than anyone else. This time, the world didn't beat them with a Versailles treaty too.
My point in this you ask. Primarily, when 2 rogue states collide. Germany and Great Britain. One falling from it's height, the other ascending. The brough the world to war. This is why I am scared of the US, especially the Ballistic Missile Defence, because that is the kind of thing that can start wars. Now, nuclear ones.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:31 am

is there any nation in any time of history which you have any respect for, mediev?

I don't really understand how I can "respect" a nation.

Not to bash our good friend Mediev, but if you detest the United States so much, why do you live in california?

Isn't this a rewording of the tired "love it or leave it" scenario?

Interesting idea, that the world is just following a cycle of mega powers, because there has always been one power stronger than the rest, most of us just haven't seen it because of the cold war, where, arguably, the USSR was stronger.

The USSR was stronger than the US at any point in history? Am I reading this right?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 3:32 am

Originally posted by mediev

The USSR was stronger than the US at any point in history? Am I reading this right?

Stronger in the sense the USSR's miltary was bigger than the USA's. IIRC the USSR also had more Nukes...but less ways to send them.(ICBM's)

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:28 am

Stronger in the sense the USSR's miltary was bigger than the USA's

It was?!

IIRC the USSR also had more Nukes...but less ways to send them.(ICBM's)

By 1958, after completely surrounding the USSR with nuclear missles fully capable of destroying every major population center, the US had stockpiled 5,828 nuclear missles (secretly deployed worldwide from Turkey to Greenland), while the USSR had a total of 650. Only 4 SS-6 ICBM missles were ever deployed in the USSR, the technology being used for space exploration in the future.

Jace · Post by **Jace** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:41 am

Thanks for this entertaining Thread. (And many others).

I have been a bit of a lurker here for a while, but would now like to add a personal opinion on this topic.

I have known a few Americans - all well educated and open, friendly people but have never been to the US. My opinion on the US is mainly coloured by media coverage but is influenced by limited personal experience.

The US seems to be a very introspective culture. It is not just the politicians that view other countries and cultures in the light of what effect do they have on me? - Where they take any consideration of them at all. So it is hardly surprising that when Americans deal with other cultures they come from the angle of

- Best - "How can I make them more like me?"
- Worst - "How much can I take these guys for?"

I have rarely seen evidence from any American - however nice or friendly or well educated - a willingness to pay anything other than lip service to the idea that cultural diversity is not only a good thing but that respect for other cultures, ways of life, economic systems and/or religious beliefs is needed in its own right, let alone to achieve any ends.

American trade policy has a long history of condemning trade barriers and traffis, and then turning around and applying their own when American jobs are at threat. (Look at the recent Banana wars between the US and the EU, also at the current situation with American steel production - to take just two examples)

It just seems to me that the American culture is no less hard line and even less willing to be answerable to any authority than any of the countries it labels Rogue States (Notice that they are not Rogue Countries).

Having just reread what I have written I will point out that I do not find America and Americans alone in this position - It is prevalent throughout the world.

I just find it vaguely offensive when a country decides to mount a crusade on behalf of the free world (what ever that is) against rogue states and countries with weapons of mass destruction that train and fund terrorists, when that country has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world combined, is not prepared to be answerable for its actions, has openly trained and funded terrorists and is directly responsible for many more killings than have been inflicted on it by any terrorist organization.

What I find offensive are not the actions or even the intent. It is the hypocrisy. There is very little difference between the US and the countries it condems.

End of rant.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:24 am

An editorial for your consideration

I don't have time to for a lengthy post, but I came across this editorial which has a European look at US unilateralism. This is specifically with regard to the "war on terrorism," which (it seems to me) many Europeans now question.

Later.