Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-11 15:53:20

The Israel-Palestine conflict is not something I know too much about, but looking over this post I do want to say a few words regarding the West and the Middle East. The West has consistently engaged in imperial actions there, to further its own profit. It is pretty clear to me just from the basic outlines of the situation that support for Israel is just part of this basic imperial style. Israel is clearly the party which is acting most tyrannically in the conflict, because Israel is occupying territory in violation of international law and UN resolutions, and is attempting a policy of ethnic cleansing and colonization by using terror to gradually excorcise the Palestinians from the region. Some Israelis on the right talk openly about "transfer", that is, forcibly removing the Palestinians as a bloc from the land that Israel has conquered. The situation resembles in some ways the US colonization of the Western US and the genocide which was a part of it. Any discussion about atrocities committed by Palestinians must be understood in this imperial framework. Israel is by far the most powerful country, and indeed, as Clark has noted, it is capable of much more destruction than it has already perpetrated, including that of the nuclear type. If the Arab countries ever banded together and launched a successful invasion of Israel, Israel would doubtless launch nuclear weapons, with devestating effects on the region. This situation alone, forgetting all the other ones, makes a complete mockery of any US concern for "weapons of mass destruction". The US supports Israel to the tune of $3 billion per year, over a third of the US foreign aid budget.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-11 19:26:17

Let's see what we are dictating, shall we? Are we asking the parties for anything outrageous? Or are we asking for a peaceful resolution of conflict in order to avoid a major catastrophe? How exactly is the US being unfair in it's expectations?

It doesn't matter whether your expectations are outrageous or not. The bottom line is that you are not the parent.

I might buy that if it were not for the fact that the UN does not represent solely democratically elected governments. The worst offenders against humanity have had, or still have, a seat at the table that is supposedly equal to the most democratic countries. To suppose that we are somehow equals is silly.

The U.N. could not seriously be a democratic representative of the world unless it represents all countries, whether they are democratically elected or not.

Your example hits the nail on the head, however you are failing to take 'reality' into account. I understand what you are getting at, but I and anyone else is perfectly justified in chopping a hole in the market if it means starvation otherwise. We are allowed to do what is necessary when our lives are on the line. People may do as much as they wish so long as it doesn't hurt others. If a supermarket closes, and there is no other, we are at liberty to prevent the closure, or open it on our own accord. It is the most basic right we all have Robert- it's why stealing bread while starving is not a crime.

Stealing bread while starving IS a crime. The excuse does not matter, theft is theft. Sometimes a hunger pain in the belly is the only thing that can get a deadbeat to get off his ass and get to work. And you can't convince me that the "starving" argument applies to the richest country in the world.

Palomar · 2003-06-11 19:32:13

Well, if those sources are legit...geez, what can I say?
I'm not sure of this. Some sources say they are legit, others say that are at least questionable. ???

*Could be disinformation.

--Cindy

mcshlong · 2003-06-11 19:34:49

Why does America support Israel ?

Are you sure they do? Or are they being targeted as another western style evil country, by arab countries, becuase the USA is not arab.

Its hard to believe that any arab country would actively suggest that the USA was on its side. Seeing how radical the arab religion is these day.

The questions you need to ask yourself is has America really choosen sides? My view from here is that America is trying to broker peace, and they are neutral.

As to why the USA has to get involved I have no idea. My personal solution is to build a big wall between the two countries and place mines for a mile on both sides of it, becuase its pretty obvious those two need to be seperated. This is the one case where the berlin wall seems a good idea.

Palomar · 2003-06-11 19:42:48

The US supports Israel to the tune of $3 billion per year, over a third of the US foreign aid budget.

*Which brings to mind something I spotted on a news segment months ago: U.S. Army tanks patrolling an area inside Palestine. On the side of the tank was written in big block letters: THE BIG TASTE OF AMERICA.

I wonder how that video clip slipped through. I don't recall ever seeing something like that on a syndicated news network.

Probably not too oddly, immediately upon reading those words I thought "Big Mac," as in the McDonald's sandwich.

--Cindy

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-12 01:19:49

Stealing bread while starving IS a crime. The excuse does not matter, theft is theft. Sometimes a hunger pain in the belly is the only thing that can get a deadbeat to get off his ass and get to work

While I do agree with many of the things you have said in the this discussion, this comment certainly is not one of them. Actually I find it to be disgusting. The idea that someone ought to have to take orders from someone else ("get off his ass and work") in order to survive should, I think, be seen as monstrous.

Palomar · 2003-06-12 08:13:35

Stealing bread while starving IS a crime. The excuse does not matter, theft is theft. Sometimes a hunger pain in the belly is the only thing that can get a deadbeat to get off his ass and get to work
While I do agree with many of the things you have said in the this discussion, this comment certainly is not one of them. Actually I find it to be disgusting. The idea that someone ought to have to take orders from someone else ("get off his ass and work") in order to survive should, I think, be seen as monstrous.

*Huh?

What is the alternative, then? That hard-working and industrious people "owe" a living to lazy and incompetent adults? I don't think so.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-06-12 08:14:34

Sometimes a hunger pain in the belly is the only thing that can get a deadbeat to get off his ass and get to work
While I do agree with many of the things you have said in the this discussion, this comment certainly is not one of them. Actually I find it to be disgusting. The idea that someone ought to have to take orders from someone else ("get off his ass and work") in order to survive should, I think, be seen as monstrous.

*Oh give me a break.

What is the alternative, then? That hard-working and industrious people "owe" a living to lazy and incompetent adults? I don't think so.

I know this may come as a tremendous shock to some people, but North America was built by lots of hard work, industriousness, sweat and tears. Nowadays many people seem to have this illusion that they are "owed" a nice home, all the amenities and quite a few luxuries besides, "just because" they were born in America and continue to breathe. I'm sick and tired of the "sense of entitlement" of the whiners and daydreamers.

While I'm -not- averse or opposed to helping people in genuine need (lending a helping hand), I certainly don't advocate enabling leeches and welfare bums.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-06-12 08:31:57

It doesn't matter whether your expectations are outrageous or not. The bottom line is that you are not the parent.

I see, so even though we are affected by their choices, we have no right to intervene in order to ensure that a result is achieved that is safe for the greater whole? You would make an excellent neighbor Robert.

The U.N. could not seriously be a democratic representative of the world unless it represents all countries, whether they are democratically elected or not.

So a democratic instution for governments, where all nation states are equal to all other member nation states, even though the governments themselves are not neccessarily legitimate, is the application of 'democracy'? It's a mockery.

The UN world body dosen't mean a damn thing, and it never has. The real power lies within the Security Council, since the Security Council, and those who sit on it, can effectively thwart the will of the world body. The Permanent members of the Security COuncil were derived based on military might after the last major world conflict some 50+ years ago. How the hell is that democratic to begin with? The reason that the Security Council works on consensus, whereby anyone who veto's stops all actions, was basically a way to prevent Nuclear War between the major powers sitting on the Security Council. It was meant to prevent nuclear war and the unthinkable, not decide who is right and wrong in world issues.

You want to keep talking about the UN?

Stealing bread while starving IS a crime.

Yeah, stealin bread is a crime. Stealing bread becuase you are starving and have no means to provide bread legitimately, and if your only way to obtain the bread is through theft, it is not a crime.

Murder is a crime, right Robert? Murder bad. Yet we send people off to war for one purpose, kill the other guys. Is killing in self defense a crime? Why not? Because we are entitled to do whatever is neccessary to survive when our lives are threatened.

The excuse does not matter, theft is theft.

No, exscuses do matter. Reasons do matter. Intention does matter. You want to paint morality as black and white, but you can't, it dosen't work that way.

And you can't convince me that the "starving" argument applies to the richest country in the world.

No, but we may do what is neccessary to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where we are starving.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-12 09:41:25

so even though we are affected by their choices, we have no right to intervene in order to ensure that a result is achieved that is safe for the greater whole? You would make an excellent neighbor Robert.

Democracy is a tricky thing that has many subtle points that must be managed well to avoid abuse. Others on this board have warned about "mob rule". That is one subtle point you must be very wary of to avoid repression. Freedom means the democracy must protect the rights of the minority, because in one aspect or another everyone is in a minority. Freedom must apply to everyone or it applies to no one. You cannot steal bread or use military force to take control of the Suez Canal, or impose your unilateral solution to the Middle East conflict just because you want to use the Suez Canal. Freedom applied to everyone means that the Suez Canal is owned and operated by Egypt. Any trouble in Egypt's back yard or trouble Egypt may have with its neighbours is a issue for Egypt to deal with. You can advise, you can suggest, you can offer assistance, but you can not dictate. The excuse of "the greater good" means you want to assemble a mob to mug those in the area of the Middle East and steal what they have. That would make you the criminal.

So a democratic institution for governments, where all nation states are equal to all other member nation states, even though the governments themselves are not necessarily legitimate, is the application of 'democracy'?

"Legitimate" is a relative term. Remember that the United States of America was founded by a revolutionary war against England, and the initial attack was a terrorist act in Boston's harbour. According to England of the day, the government of the U.S. was not legitimate. It took decades before England accepted U.S. government. An international body must deal with international issues and truely universal issues regardless of culture. The United States has gone through many fundamental cultural changes since 1492. I won't try to list them, but the point is that if one country can make such fundamental changes in culture then why can't you accept similar differences between the U.S. and other countries today? Differences of culture and differences of government style are something an international body must accept without bias. That does mean that all nations must be treated as equal within the U.N. regardless of the method of selecting the government and details of operation of that government. If you want to argue further about government "legitimacy" I would have to bring up the "tally hassle in Tallahassee".

Stealing bread because you are starving and have no means to provide bread legitimately, and if your only way to obtain the bread is through theft, it is not a crime.

Yes, it is a crime. There are many things you can do to raise enough money to feed yourself. They may be hard work, they may pay very little, the food many not be fancy, but using force to take something away from someone else can never be justified. All modern countries have soup kitchens, and most have welfare. That may provide little compared to the standard of living for that culture, but it is much better than hard working employed people had 2 centuries ago. It's much better than many employed people had 1 century ago.

I do have some idea. I was unemployed several times. At one time employment insurance benefits ran out, I had no money, all my lines of credit were max'ed-out. Although I had reduced my grocery bill to $45 per month, at one point I had no money at all. For one week the only food I had was fish I caught in the river and vegetables I grew in my own garden. I did not go on welfare, and did not go to a soup kitchen. I got work delivering newspapers. That was enough to pay the bills and buy food. It was humiliating to accept employment insurance benefits, but at least I can say that I never accepted social assistance, and certainly never stole. When I was hungry and had no food to eat I did not steal bread. Don't argue to me about justification for stealing.

No, but we may do what is neccessary to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where we are starving.

Since George W. Bush was elected president the U.S. economy has gone from a balanced budget to an annual deficit that is more than half of Canada?s entire national debt. I don?t think you have to look outside the U.S. to assign blame for any ?starving?.

clark · 2003-06-12 10:07:02

You cannot steal bread or use military force to take control of the Suez Canal, or impose your unilateral solution to the Middle East conflict just because you want to use the Suez Canal. Freedom applied to everyone means that the Suez Canal is owned and operated by Egypt.

It is wrong to use force, or impose our will unilateraly, without justification. It is correct to impose order if other parties do not act in a legitimate and responsible manner that is consistent with maintaing saftey and respect of others. You have the freedom to act as an adult, to proceed as an adult, to make any decisions a 'reasonable' adult would make. You are not free, and nations are not free, to make irrational choices that are not consistent with reasonable behaviour.

In other words, you act like a child, you get beat like a child.

This whole issue of equality between nations is a farce. We are not nations. We are people. No one, and I don't give a rats ass if you live in Jakarta or Timbuktu, has the right or perogative to threaten others.

It's a simple fucking idea that dosen't stop at some imaginary line in the fucking sand.

The stupid infantile yahoo's are simply out of control. I would love to leave them all to their own devices and let them bleed out their hate all over the ground. After all, why should I or you or anyone else give a flying #### if they obliterate themselves like mindless animals? Who the #### cares. A couple Israelis, a couple Palastenians, just fucking strangers on the boob tube, in between my Bic Mac and Friends episode. None of them matter to me. None of them matter to a great deal of humanity. Afterall, I still have to pay my share of taxes, and I still get to choose from a few crummy politicans who all are standing in line to whisper sweet nothings in my ear while they push me down on my knees.

Just fucking nobodies who obviously need to get something out of their system, that's who those people are on the TV screen at night. Who are we to say they shouldn't be killing each other, right? Who the #### do we think we are expecting them to respect basic fucking human dignity. We're so fucking arrogant to want something better for them. To want peace in the area so we can finally bring our fellow citizens home.

Yeah, we could pull out now, be done with it. Wash our hands of the whole affair and turn our backs on the ever spiraling death and destruction that will occur there. hey, maybe it will turn out okay, and only a few million people will die. Perhaps in 40 years time, the radiation will be at a level where most of the fucking birth defects have dropped off. Real fucking stweards of this world we all are, hiding behind this veil of nationality. Before that it was fucking empires, or fucking clans. "Hey gotta respect the clan, the clan is inviolate. All clans are equal, and what happens in one clan is not our business..."

Meanwhile people, flesh and blood like you and I, get gang raped and beaten. Real fucking progressive.

it's time to wake the #### up and realize that the world is not filled with enlightened adults making wise choices for the future. It's time to fucking realize that this world is run by children who are just overside fucking idiots. We live in a fucking playground, but their ain't no teacher to break up the fights between the bullies and victims.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-12 11:02:49

Well, if you want to ignore national borders and impose basic human rights then you have to start asking what a basic human right is. You argue that food is a basic right; I argue there are always alternatives to stealing. Some people argue that adultery should be punishable by death, others believe in open marriage. Some believe that medical research to end disease that is killing hundreds or thousands of people each year justifies anything you do with tissue in a Petri dish in a laboratory; others argue that you cannot experiment with human embryos. Some believe research to end plague justifies a university professor collecting samples of plague and developing a cure, others argue that all research into deadly disease can "potentially" be used for biological warfare so should be tightly controlled by a totalitarian government agency. Some believe in a national health care system, others believe health care should be free enterprise. These are the sorts of decisions about priorities that a culture has to make, the sorts of decisions a nation has to make. An international body or any particular individual cannot impose them.

If you want to make an end to warfare a fundamental right that is independent of national borders, there are many people who would agree with you. Mutual assured security was the strongest principle of the U.N. when it was created. You could easily argue that warfare is terrorism, and terrorism is mass murder; there can be no justification for any of it. Correct police action to end an armed conflict is non-lethal response rather than bombardment with stand-off weapons. Police action would have to be asserted by a body that is not answerable to any nation. When the U.N. was created President Wilson argued for a U.N. standing army; Europe argued against it to support national power. Are you calling for representatives to the U.N. to be directly elected by citizens regardless of nations? Such a thing would make the U.N. (or its successor) into a global federation. There are strong ethical arguments for such a thing, but I don?t think it would be politically possible.

clark · 2003-06-12 11:16:22

Well, if you want to ignore national borders and impose basic human rights then you have to start asking what a basic human right is.

This is stupid. Please don't take this as me thinking you are stupid Robert, it's the idea that is stupid. I, you, and everyone else don't need to ask this question. "What is a basic human right?" It's self evident. We all have the basic human right to live our lives as we see fit, as long as we do not infringe upon the lives of others. Where our personal choices lead to an infringement upon others, a peaceful resolution of conflict must be the only acceptable means of dealing with the situation. There are no other basic rights. Everything is derived from this one principle, this one idea.

I don't give a rats ass what your god tells you. I don't give a rats ass what your leader has promised you, or how he got to be your leader. None of that means a damn thing. The basic principle stands in all situations.

You argue that food is a basic right; I argue there are always alternatives to stealing.

If there is no alternative to stealing Robert, is it wrong to steal then? If a government is denying food to a segment of it's population, isn't that population justified in resorting to theft inorder to survive? If you still say no, there is no need to discuss this issue further.

Some people argue that adultery should be punishable by death,

No one has the right to harm another individual. Basic right derived from a simple principle.

Some believe in a national health care system, others believe health care should be free enterprise. These are the sorts of decisions about priorities that a culture has to make, the sorts of decisions a nation has to make. An international body or any particular individual cannot impose them.

Agreed Robert. But let's put this in the context of the discussion, we are not imposing a health care system on the middle east. We are looking to find a way to end the violence. Exactly what is wrong with that? How can anyone be against our involvement in trying to reach a settlement of a dispute where innocent people are dying? We're not making them decide who is and who isn't a human being here, we're trying to make them all realize that they're all fucking human beings. There isn't a question on their staus.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-12 11:59:27

I did meet one person of Jewish descent who, when asked about Arabs, stated "Those people don't think like you or I." The absolute fit about animal reactions by Arabs was quite amazing. This person was in America. I met another individual whose reaction wasn't quite so vehement, but held the same basic attitude. He was also a Jewish American. Intolerant attitudes are not restricted to the Middle East. There are also a lot of Sikh immigrants here in my home town. For several years we had trouble with them protesting actions in India, picking fights with Hindi immigrants, and trying to wear a "ceremonial" dagger into court. There were even threats of terrorist actions. It took years to convince them that if they want to come to Canada to get away from their conflict in India, then leave their conflict there. We don't want to import that conflict into Canada.

However, I don?t think the U.S. government can impose a resolution in the Middle East. This thread started with the question ?Why does U.S.A. support Israel?? A resolution would require Israel formally recognising Palestine as an independent country, and Palestine recognising Israel. Both countries would have to stop the attacks, no excuses and no reprisals. The government of Palestine would have to control its factions to prevent further attacks on Israel. Both countries would have to agree on territory. The dispute regarding territory has become a very political one where the leaders do know what they have to do but would loose domestic political support if they did it. That would require Palestine giving up on Jerusalem, and Israel dismantling or surrendering their settlements in the West Bank. How do you convince them to do it? If you order them to do it, they will both continue terrorist attacks. To end the violence you have to get them to understand and ?buy into it?.

By the way, your description of basic human rights sounds very good to me. The difficulty gets into the details.

If a government is denying food to a segment of it's population, isn't that population justified in resorting to theft inorder to survive?

No, I do not believe theft is justified even in that situation. Overthrowing the government by whatever means necessary would be. Don't steal from your fellow citizens because some government is harming you. Take your justice to the perpetrator.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-12 19:57:33

If we were gods and knew everything, then it would be ok to say to someone "You are not doing what you should be doing, therefore you will starve". However, in the real world, we are not gods, and for someone to starve because they are not obeying the orders of someone else is intolerable. Perhaps the person is right in what they are doing ; it could be. Why should they be forced to obey another?

And lest you reply with something like "but they must also support themselves", it ought to be noted that many people do things for a living which have no clear role in furthering human survival. If everyone grew what they ate, and built their own houses, and wrote their own books and so on, the situation would be rather different.

Furthermore, since in our society most of the relevant wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small elite (1% of the US population owns 40% of the wealth, though the share of wealth which they control that is relevant to employment, ie in the form of enterprises, is doubtless much higher) they end up commanding everyone else in exchange for survival, hardly a just arrangement.

Cobra Commander · 2003-06-14 01:28:11

Here's a politically incorrect, polarizing, but relevant idea. The United States has already moved against Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and against Hussein's regime in Iraq, for a number of reasons. Our present enemy is not from a single nation, but simply extremists who are predominately Arab. Hamas and their Palestinian ilk certainly qualify.

If we want peace, then perhaps we should throw our full support behind Israel, discarding the less-than-convincing attempt to be unbiased. Many Palestinians won't accept any peace agreement because they will not accept a single Jew on what they see as their land. They can't be negotiated with, there can be no peace. This element must be eliminated. Maybe we should move to wipe out every muslim extremist group in the region. They are already attacking Israel and they'll never be won over by America. It might be time to face the possibly that "crusade" was the right word after all.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like this idea. It will mean heavy casualties on all sides, decades of occupation of a huge area of land, and a radically altered global political enviroment with much of the world aligned against America, in words though likely not in deeds. America would acquire a collection of Arab vassal states, and Israel's security would be assured. The price would be too high, but if such a course should prove necessary we should do it whole-heartedly. If we have to be militant imperialists, we should be the best damn militant imperialists we can be.

Of course there's a nuclear option, but no one wants that. Let's just put that back under the table. But make sure everyone knows it's there.

dickbill · 2003-06-14 09:08:08

As bad as the situation looks now, I think it would be worst for israel if the US had not supported them all these years.
Imagine the scenario that US removes his support now: then some arab nations might decide to attack Israel, but compared to the past when countries like Egypt had attacked Israel, now much less nations would attack, I think. Palestinian, sure, what else, maybe Lybia officialy, some isolated Syrians and Iranians unbacked from their government but i doubt that Syria and Iran would go officially at war against Israel, I mean with tanks and jets. I don't think Iran would go because it looks the country mentality is slowly modernising, sure ayatollahs still rule, but for how long ? the young Iranian seems more open minded than their elders. It the same for Syria, they have everything to loose in a war against Israel. So In short, I think american support has been efficient, it gave time to the people in the region to get used to the idea of the Israelian state. Some countries which would have attacked Israel in the past, would not do it anymore. It's a success already.
The palestinian problem remains, true, but it's not a military threat to Israel, it's a terrorist threat.
I would say that now, especially with the Iraq treat removed (note: I don't think that Iraq was an imminent threat against america, which would have justified the war, but I do think that Iraq was a threat to Israel), there is no significative military threat against Israel, even if all the US troops left the middle east region. Israel can deal by itself, military I mean, in a putative war. Even if Iraq had not been invaded, Israel would have been able to beat Iraq easily in case of war, even without using their nuclear weapons.
So, the terrorist threat is the only threat which remains. For that, maybe a United Nation force composed of arabs soldiers, (egyptian, marocan, algerian, they would probably be accepted by palestinians better than american soldiers) could interpose between Israel and the palestinian. Why the UN doesn't give mandate for a force as a policekeepers there ? I don't know.
The US should give more respect to the UN as a lawfull organisation, with power and goals democratically and legally decided, and respect the UN decisions. Well, maybe Mr Anan has done his time, he is too soft, sometimes you need a big mouth. Maybe what the world needs is a tough guy, like Rumsfeld, head of the UN and a moderate, like Anan, as secretary of defense in the US.

PaganToris · 2003-06-15 20:56:55

i think it is becuse well isreal has one bad ass military group to man and it wpuld be with r best intrst to be thier freinds i aint saying the us aint bad or anything but isreal is just bad ass in their military

Echus_Chasma · 2003-06-15 23:44:51

The US should give more respect to the UN as a lawfull organisation, with power and goals democratically and legally decided, and respect the UN decisions. Well, maybe Mr Anan has done his time, he is too soft, sometimes you need a big mouth. Maybe what the world needs is a tough guy, like Rumsfeld, head of the UN and a moderate, like Anan, as secretary of defense in the US.

I think that the US would give more respect to the UN if the UN actually did something. If the UN had of prevented Soviet Russia from starting the nuclear arms race then America would not have been put into the position of "world police" as it is now. The thing about the UN and international law is that it permits a soverign nation to do whatever it wants inside of its own borders, which means killing, oppression, fear etc. How can we have an organisation who is supposed to be protecting world peace and stopping rouge nations like Nazi Germany from forming if they allowed a nation to oppress it's people?

RobertDyck · 2003-06-16 11:41:24

I think that the US would give more respect to the UN if the UN actually did something. If the UN had of prevented Soviet Russia from starting the nuclear arms race then America would not have been put into the position of "world police" as it is now. The thing about the UN and international law is that it permits a soverign nation to do whatever it wants inside of its own borders, which means killing, oppression, fear etc. How can we have an organisation who is supposed to be protecting world peace and stopping rouge nations like Nazi Germany from forming if they allowed a nation to oppress it's people?

I am trying to get out of this discussion, but I'm afraid your statement isn't correct. The U.S.A. had built nuclear bombs after World War 2. The Soviet Union expanded its sphere of influence over Europe, and the U.S. ordered them to stop by threatening to use nuclear weapons first. In the 1950s the Soviet Union had a larger conventional military than America; it was always America's policy to use nuclear weapons first if the Soviet Union invaded western Europe. Soviet nuclear weapons were a response. The Soviets developed intercontinental ballistic missiles first as a means to deliver those nuclear weapons, but also to demonstrate they can develop something first. They were years behind with nuclear bomb technology. Sputnik was not just the first satellite; it was a demonstration that the Soviets could deliver a nuclear warhead any on the planet. At that time the U.S. had very crude ballistic missile capability; their strategy was bomber aircraft. The U.S. did not have intercontinental capability at the time Sputnik flew. You could say the entire space race was an extension of the arms race. The arms race was a result of the U.S. attempting to have nuclear weapons when no one else did.

As for the UN determining what a sovereign nation does inside its own borders; tell me, would Rhode Island want New York state dictating state laws? Would Montana want Virginia dictating highway speed or marriage laws? If you can see the answer is now, they why would you expect other sovereign countries to accept the U.S. dictating national laws? The U.N. could do so only if it was a truly international body, and that does mean it must democratically represent all member nations. Determining such things as the internal operation of a country must be done by the General Assembly, not a small group of powerful nations like the Security Council. The Security Council can respond to emergencies such as war between nations, but establishing policy such as how nations are permitted to treat criminals would be a matter for the entire democratic body. That means the U.S. and all other permanent members of the Security Council would not have a veto, they would have just 1 vote in a body of 191. Would the politicians accept this?

clark · 2003-06-16 12:06:21

The self is inviolate.

The family is inviolate.

The clan is inviolate.

The group is inviolate.

The nation is inviolate.

The belief is inviolate.

As for the UN determining what a sovereign nation does inside its own borders; tell me, would Rhode Island want New York state dictating state laws?

Robert, I think I need to explain US democracy to you.

New York State has a say on Rhode Isalnd State law. So does every other State in the Union. Federal law, which all member states have a say in, and which they are beholden to, trumps State law.

If Rhode Island wants a law to enslave middle aged white people, New York, and every other State in the Union can say no.

And guess what, they have to take it.

Of course, the Govenor could call out the National Guard and start something of a Civil War over it. It's happened before.

But then that would be the State of Rhode Island against the US Federal government, and her military. The threat of force ensures that the State's will follow the determination of the Federal government. Thus, disagreements between member States within the US are resolved peacefully, becuase the US federal government is ultimetly the final Judge.

The UN, and all previous incarnations is a farce. Why? Becuase it does not have the power to enforce any decision, and rightfully so. It isn't democratic. It's members are not fully democratic. One need only look to which nations chair the UN Human Rights committee to see what I am talking about.

It's merely a politcal instution for politicans. It isn't about representation of people.

I think most individuals can choose what is proper for their own lives. I even think most groups can do this. However, I also relaize that there are just as many individuals and groups who are completely incapable of achieving this. As such, it is okay to intevene when choices are made by individuals or groups, that endanger others.

If Rhode Island wants to tax their citizens more- fine. They want to start beating every other blonde hair child, then we have a problem. The same applies to any other country in this damn world.

We all have the right to make choices that any reasonable adult would make. We do not have the right to hurt others.

That means no capital punishment, ever. That means any form of violence perpetuated on another individual is not allowed for any belief, creed, or nation.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-16 12:49:05

There is a larger principle I have avoided because I'm not sure you can handle it. The current U.N. charter of Human Rights has Democracy built into it. That creates a bias, a prejudice, toward democracy and against all other forms of government. I live in a representative democracy and wouldn't want to live in anything other than a democracy, but there are other forms of government. As a detail, the Canadian system is a parliamentary system, the U.S. is a Republic. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. The U.K. is at least formally a Constitutional Monarchy, however they have operated as a Parliamentary Democracy for several decades; the queen has very little authority.

A dictatorship does have some advantages over a democracy: it provides stability of leadership (doesn?t change head of state every 4-8 years), it doesn?t have to pay for maintenance of a large congress or parliament, and laws can be changed very quickly. The dictatorship has many forms including a true Monarchy, however it is a giant gamble with the entire country and the lives of all its citizens. You depend on the dictator being benevolent, competent, and non-corrupt. The dictator has to be a skilled politician to get everyone to follow his/her leadership, has to be a skill administrator to get the government to run smoothly, has to be an excellent economist to keep the national economy running smoothly, has to be a skilled accountant to keep the budget balanced, has to be an excellent diplomat to maintain amicable relations with neighbouring countries, has to be a top lawyer to draft workable laws, has to have the wisdom of Solomon to judge court cases, and a keen judge of character to select top administrators such as Secretary of State or Minister of Finance. In a democracy you have a congress, parliament or legislature to draft laws, a Supreme Court to judge cases, and several checks and balances to prevent mistakes, abuse or corruption. There are several cases where the checks in the United States have broken down, but nothing like has happened in dictatorships. The Sultan of Brunai has been a very good ruler, but off hand he is the only good dictator I know of in the last half century. The odds of a dictatorship working are very bad. But if the citizens of a country want to take that gamble, it is their decision and they should live with the consequences.

But these are not the only possible forms of government. There is also direct democracy, the caste system, communism, socialism (which is different than communism), religious fanaticism (there are Christian Fundamentalists who would like to see that in the U.S.), and others. The caste system has the promise of breeding individuals who are far more skilled in the jobs of their caste, but leaves no chance of advancement outside the caste and is a very rigid system that cannot adapt to rapidly changing technology or employee allocation. One proposal would require would-be government officials such as the head of state or senators required to take formal post-secondary education in the system and tested to determine which is most qualified. Either those educational qualifications and grades could be published for voters to review, or an automatic system could draft the most qualified to be president. There are some who argue that anyone who wants to be president is not qualified simply because he/she wants to be president; the only qualified president would have to be drafted against his/her will. I don?t think drafting someone into a job would produce good work performance, but publishing a candidate?s qualifications does sound like a good policy. This could include an equivalent to an S.A.T. test for would-be presidential candidates.

If you try to claim that the Republican Democracy of the U.S. is the only viable democracy, you attempt to assimilate the rest of the world into your government system. The rest of the world would not accept that. Any truly international system would have to accept diversity and work with it.

If you want to claim that ?nation? is not inviolate then you state that the other countries of the world such as France or Iran have the right to determine national laws in the U.S. Would you accept that?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-06-11 15:53:20

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#52 2003-06-11 19:26:17

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#53 2003-06-11 19:32:13

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#54 2003-06-11 19:34:49

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#55 2003-06-11 19:42:48

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#56 2003-06-12 01:19:49

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#57 2003-06-12 08:13:35

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#58 2003-06-12 08:14:34

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#59 2003-06-12 08:31:57

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#60 2003-06-12 09:41:25

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#61 2003-06-12 10:07:02

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#62 2003-06-12 11:02:49

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#63 2003-06-12 11:16:22

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#64 2003-06-12 11:59:27

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#65 2003-06-12 19:57:33

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#66 2003-06-14 01:28:11

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#67 2003-06-14 09:08:08

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#68 2003-06-15 20:56:55

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#69 2003-06-15 23:44:51

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#70 2003-06-16 11:41:24

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#71 2003-06-16 12:06:21

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#72 2003-06-16 12:49:05

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Board footer