Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on August 24, 2005, 09:57:29 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4178804.stm
/sigh
-
But the standards of proof must be high, or we might inadvertently invade an irrelevant country.
-
Go in and flush them out... take their nuky's. Dumbass US.
Contaminated equiptment? Wow thats origional.
-
Charismatic are you being serious?
that was an IAEA report
The independent report, published on Tuesday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, concluded that traces of uranium found in Iran two years ago came from contaminated equipment imported from Pakistan.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
But the standards of proof must be high, or we might inadvertently invade an irrelevant country.
But surely the US has a duty to remove these evil Islamic law-run theocratic nations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4177266.stm)?!!oneoneone
-
Proof positive that God exists, and that he has a wicked sense of humour.
As for Iran: good for them. If the report is true, it's a slap in the face to all the warmongers.
-
Watch this, the dolly will be out the pram any day now.
Suddenly "reform" of the UN will speed up.
-
ok if we covertly support the students protesting and trying to get their freedom - fine
-
Originally posted by vyper
Watch this, the dolly will be out the pram any day now.
Suddenly "reform" of the UN will speed up.
That went right over my head.
Kazan: Here's a question: would you support let's say China supporting movements in the US? If not, why would you advocate the same thing for another country?
-
Rictor: if they're supporting movements to promote more democracy and human rights then hell yes
-
With the right technology, leftover waste from a nuclear power plant can be used to create nuclear bombs. If every country has "civilian" nuclear rights, at some point a crazed maniac is going to decide to cause nuclear armageddeon. I'm in favor of limiting nuclear power for that reason, but what the hell... we're gonna blow ourselves up some way or another. :p
-
I bet they are trying to get nukes and thanks to Mr Bush's wonderful leadership there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: if they're supporting movements to promote more democracy and human rights then hell yes
What if their definition of human rights and democracy is different from yours?
-
aldo: the definition of human rights is not subjective - if someone is subscribing to a subjective one then they need to be ignored
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: the definition of human rights is not subjective - if someone is subscribing to a subjective one then they need to be ignored
There is a question of the definition, and a question of how and who to that definition is applied. Within certain contexts, there is probably ambiguity due to political reasons.
There's also the question of the way in which one human right can be advanced at the expense of another; the classic security versus liberty issue. For example, one way to help ensure personal security could be to ban private ownership of firearms. There's no explicit protection in the UN declaration of human rights for firearms ownership, but I'm sure you'd see many in the US arguing it was a violation of their rights to do so.
The justification for this, would then be an entirely cultural thing; i.e. in the UK the firearms ban is accepted and approved by, I believe, the majority. If another culture has a different concept of the aformentioned liberty-security balance and what it means, then you can see possible subversion of an independent countries culture through those measures. And that would be, IMO, a problem.
I'm not going to argue against anyone supporting human rights & democratic movements, only against the dangers when it's done with a subtext, regardless of how subtle or minor.
-
the right to bear arms is not a human right
-
Personally, I agree - but some could define it as such, perhaps within the definition of right to security, or not to arbitrarily denied property. I don't know if that has ever been legally tested, though.
Either way, I believe there can still be an implied subtext to that sort of operation; usually the justification for funding it. i.e. the US would be expecting greater - for lack of a better word - co-operation from Ukraine and Georgia at the minimum. And sometimes you don't know about these subtexts' until after the 'event'. So I'd be at the least concerned by any foreign involvement, regardless of how nice it looks on the surface.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
the right to bear arms is not a human right
Says who? They're a piece of property, just like a toaster or a desk. It's a slipperly slope, with many grey areas.
Also, "human rights organizations" and "pro democracy groups" are hardly apolitical and above abuse. In fact, the have become one of the main catalysts for political action, on the grounds that whatever agenda one is trying to push is given a nice, happy face by working through an NGO. Influence is bought and sold, lies are spun - just like everywhere else.
-
I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a slipperly slope. It's a balance; you have law and the protection of society on one side, and individual rights of ownership on the other. I don't think the inherent or even likely result of banning guns is banning private ownership of anything, nor do I think legalising guns leads to an Iraq or Somalia style anarchy of destruction.
-
aldo exactly "the right to bear arms" is not a human right - the "right to own property" is
-
Or to give it a different spin how many Americans would support Europeans giving money to try to get the death penalty abolished in the USA?
Now that's definately a human rights issue which different countries look at in different ways.
-
Yeah, I was speaking in general, not about just guns. There are many vaguaries (is that a word?), like the "right to dignity" and the list seems to be growing over time.
-
I have a nasty feeling that Iran is going to be invaded next when the US has an opportunity.
-
And ofcourse American Democracy isn't the only wat to be "free"
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo exactly "the right to bear arms" is not a human right - the "right to own property" is
Define what property is, though. The loosest definition is any item which can be owned. And also the right to security, which is maybe the more likely to be cited.
Again, not something I believe in myself - I'm for banning private gun ownership as has been in the UK - but surely you can see how there's enough ambiguity for an arguement.
-
ok, let me try to redefine this,
I think there government is being oppressive to there people, I suport efforts to help these people live in a state I think they currently would prefer to live in, namely a representitive democracy of some form with less of a theocratic government. regardless of how others would define human rights or terrorist/freedom fighter, I beleive the protesters in Iran calling for democratic reform are right, I beleive they are fighting for freedom, and I would suport them.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I have a nasty feeling that Iran is going to be invaded next when the US has an opportunity.
Syria's next, actually.
Just thought I'd point that out.
-
They don't have the WMD excuse with Syria. :p
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, let me try to redefine this,
I think there government is being oppressive to there people, I suport efforts to help these people live in a state I think they currently would prefer to live in, namely a representitive democracy of some form with less of a theocratic government. regardless of how others would define human rights or terrorist/freedom fighter, I beleive the protesters in the US calling for democratic reform are right, I beleive they are fighting for freedom, and I would suport them.
This has been done at the request of Ghostavo in IRC so he'll stop asking me.
-
Oh, you changed Iran to US, yes, clever..
-
Not my idea, as I wrote in the note after it. Ghostavo was bugging me on the IRC channel to do it, and I got tired of repeatedly typing "no" to his requests for me to do random things on the forums.
-
that was directed at who ever came up with it.
-
I think we should just stay the hell out affairs such as political change. If it's going to change, let them do it themselves. They'll appreciate it more. If they look like they might need help, ask. Only think about getting involved if they ask for help or take the offer for it. People don't like being told what to do. I'm not talking about the nukes.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
I think we should just stay the hell out affairs such as political change. If it's going to change, let them do it themselves. They'll appreciate it more. If they look like they might need help, ask. Only think about getting involved if they ask for help or take the offer for it. People don't like being told what to do. I'm not talking about the nukes.
Leaving people alone - what a concept! Such a great idea in fact, that a few hundred years ago some tax-dodging rebels decided to get together and form a country based on it. If only they could see their creation now.
Originally posted by Kosh
I have a nasty feeling that Iran is going to be invaded next when the US has an opportunity.
Let's see: Iran has three times the territory and three times the population of Iraq, plus they haven't spent a decade under sanctions. So no, Iran isn't going to be invaded. I dare say that even Israel won't dare to attack their nuclear reactors ala Osirak, Iran is just too big a force to take lightly. Half a million troops at the very least would be required to make an invasion anything more than a farce, and even assuming that the US withdraws completely from Iraq and Afghanistan, which is highly unlikely, they're still down several hundred thousand troops.
-
What excuse does the US have to invade Syria? That Damascus is there and that it's destruction would supposedly cause the apocalypse?
-
well... obviusly that's were Sadam's weapons were all hidden! YEAH! bomb them!
-
Don't forget that Syria is an enemy of freedom!!!!111
Actually, didn't the US use to send people there for...um... 'interrogation'? Up until someone in the administration decided it probably wasn't a good idea to send terrorist suspects to a country they were accusing of torture (which was kind of the point of sending suspects there....) and firing foreign fighters across the border into Iraq?
-
*Whispers* It's part of the Axis Evil!
No? Well, it is now. See how easy it is, instant enemy of freedom®.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Don't forget that Syria is an enemy of freedom!!!!111
Actually, didn't the US use to send people there for...um... 'interrogation'? Up until someone in the administration decided it probably wasn't a good idea to send terrorist suspects to a country they were accusing of torture (which was kind of the point of sending suspects there....) and firing foreign fighters across the border into Iraq?
No, that was the Saudis. Possibly the Egyptians as well, but I don't think so.
-
we used Jordan I think, that's close.
-
I think it's the lack of effort that appalls me most though. It's like it's too much effort to put anything but the thinnest veil between true intentions and stated opinions. There is obviously a hunt for excuses for some kind of retribution against Iran, it is obvious that the establishment is simply picking and choosing the information it wishes. While being proud of your country is a great thing, the image of America that is presented abroad is one of a people who assume that simply being America, or American makes it the best, the most honourable, or the only correct solution, hence my 'people in a room' analogy in another thread.
I have seen BBoards that would prove that image, but I've also seen ones which completely disprove it personally, I doubt it is as bad it is projected to be, but propoganda of 'The people are 100% behind us' is important to every countries leader.
I guess I get angry because it is us, the 'not-leaders' that take the brunt of arguments that we don't even have the full details of. It's easy to slip into thinking of all 'radical' muslims as mini-Osamas, so why should it not be equally as easy to think of all Western 'occupiers' as mini-Georges?
As an example, a British reporter in Australia was recently asked his opinion about the 'wave of Islamaphobia and mosque bombings' that was sweeping the UK. This came as quite a surprise to the reporter since there has been no such wave nor bombings.
Now, if countries that are highly developed and have a good communication network to the UK can still be led to believe that kind of thing, then it really isn't that hard to convince someone living in poverty in Afghanistan or Iraq of all kinds of things, or even in the suburbs of London.
We also are treated in the same manner, I think most of the people on the board have been on the Internet enough to know there are about 60 sides to every story.
We know it is happening and yet we continue to do it, because we are waved on by a well protected government with reasons that we half-know are not true, but we carry on, just in case they are, because the penalty of not acting could be people you know, whereas the cost of acting is people you don't know.
/ end rhetoric
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Leaving people alone - what a concept! Such a great idea in fact, that a few hundred years ago some tax-dodging rebels decided to get together and form a country based on it. If only they could see their creation now.
Wha... I thought you were one of the smart ones? :wtf:
-
I'll see your :wtf: and raise you a :blah:.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
No, that was the Saudis. Possibly the Egyptians as well, but I don't think so.
Actually, it was a rhetorical question; http://csmonitor.com/2005/0811/dailyUpdate.html
Other countries used do include Egypt, Pakistan, and I believe Uzbekhistan and Yeman.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I think it's the lack of effort that appalls me most though. It's like it's too much effort to put anything but the thinnest veil between true intentions and stated opinions. There is obviously a hunt for excuses for some kind of retribution against Iran, it is obvious that the establishment is simply picking and choosing the information it wishes. While being proud of your country is a great thing, the image of America that is presented abroad is one of a people who assume that simply being America, or American makes it the best, the most honourable, or the only correct solution, hence my 'people in a room' analogy in another thread.
I have seen BBoards that would prove that image, but I've also seen ones which completely disprove it personally, I doubt it is as bad it is projected to be, but propoganda of 'The people are 100% behind us' is important to every countries leader.
I guess I get angry because it is us, the 'not-leaders' that take the brunt of arguments that we don't even have the full details of. It's easy to slip into thinking of all 'radical' muslims as mini-Osamas, so why should it not be equally as easy to think of all Western 'occupiers' as mini-Georges?
As an example, a British reporter in Australia was recently asked his opinion about the 'wave of Islamaphobia and mosque bombings' that was sweeping the UK. This came as quite a surprise to the reporter since there has been no such wave nor bombings.
Now, if countries that are highly developed and have a good communication network to the UK can still be led to believe that kind of thing, then it really isn't that hard to convince someone living in poverty in Afghanistan or Iraq of all kinds of things, or even in the suburbs of London.
We also are treated in the same manner, I think most of the people on the board have been on the Internet enough to know there are about 60 sides to every story.
We know it is happening and yet we continue to do it, because we are waved on by a well protected government with reasons that we half-know are not true, but we carry on, just in case they are, because the penalty of not acting could be people you know, whereas the cost of acting is people you don't know.
/ end rhetoric
You're right, we should be directing these arguments to our leaders, but I guess we all feel they don't give a rat's ass, so we vent our frustrations out here. It's a vicious cycle. We're not all flag wavers, but those that are ruin our image for everyone. Hell, I've got one right across the street from me.
China has been attempting to censor the net. Plus a lot of people just look for what they want to see when it comes to news. It takes work to be smart about things. Somewhere out there, someone is too lazy to find out the truth.