Democracy in hypocrisy

[D_Raay]

Warning: sorry in advance to anyone getting upset from some of the images depicted in this video.

This twelve minute ’realvideo’ movie has more truth than all the tv ’experts’ combined.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9174.htm

[Qdrop]

that's a pretty horrendously biased piece, D.

kinda shameful and irresponsible to post that, IMO.

[D_Raay]

that's a pretty horrendously biased piece, D.

kinda shameful and irresponsible to post that, IMO.
In your opinion is the key there...

[D_Raay]

And I don't see how images of children with their heads half blown off COULD be biased. Half blown off heads have no bias.

[QueenAdrock]

I can't see it, someone give me the jist/message.

[D_Raay]

I can't see it, someone give me the jist/message.
Basically Queenie it shows the war from the Iraqi citizens side. Shows how contemptous and downright stupid some of our troops can be as well.

A few shots of Bush and Rumsfeld making themselves looking like hypocrites too.

Oh, and lots of dead or maimed Iraqi children.

[Documad]

The documentary The Control Room showed just a little of how the Arab world sees the US and the war. It wasn't slanted, it's just that it wasn't edited for our consumption like our TV news is. And their newspeople seemed to know a lot more about the region and people so they were able to see then the US government was lying about basic facts.

[Ali]

Ahhh, smell the Freedom!

[sam i am]

Warning: sorry in advance to anyone getting upset from some of the images depicted in this video.

This twelve minute ’realvideo’ movie has more truth than all the tv ’experts’ combined.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9174.htm

D_Raay : what are your solutions? To the war? To all that you see being wrong in the world? What can you bring to the table?

I'm truly curious....

[D_Raay]

D_Raay : what are your solutions? To the war? To all that you see being wrong in the world? What can you bring to the table?

I'm truly curious....
You got 3 hours sam? I'm not being humorous... seriously.

[sam i am]

You got 3 hours sam? I'm not being humorous... seriously.

Sure.

I know that many times we have discussed topics, as have many on this board, but flames are all that seem to emanante forth. Ideas and solutions are sorely lacking, except from such luminaries as yourself, Queen, and Qdrop (and I'll tentatively include myself, though I'm not much into self-aggrandizement).

Let's have an honest debate of more left-of-center (if I can generally categorize you thus) rather than the usual drivel that passes for philosophy around here. Let's hear what you have to AFFIRM and vet it out.

Agreed?

[D_Raay]

Ok here we go... I will spend most of my Saturday afternoon writing some thoughts... :( ... :D
The Bush administration seized upon the tragedy of September 11 to proclaim a new national security doctrine asserting the right to launch unilateral, preemptive military strikes against perceived national enemies, primarily terrorists and the states supporting them. The new national security strategy reinforced an already existing prejudice within the Bush administration against international treaties and other forms of multilateral cooperation. It also strengthened a tendency to see international security problems, and their solutions, primarily in military terms, to the exclusion of diplomatic, economic, and other non-military tools of international statecraft. This new strategy and approach to international problems served as the basis for the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and especially for the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The Bush administration’s failure to sustain effective containment and disarmament policies in Iraq, and its general disdain for multilateralism, does not alter the validity of traditional cooperative approaches to international security. The strategy of unilateral preemption is a risky and costly departure from the principles of cooperative diplomacy that have proven effective in advancing international security. An alternative global security strategy emphasizes cooperation over unilateralism, prevention over preemption, and peaceful diplomatic means over military force as the primary tools of influencing policy. It is a strategy based on the force of law, rather than the law of force, one that relies on the power of trade rather than military might, and that employs peaceful diplomatic means for achieving a more just and secure future.

The following is a summary of policy tools that are available to achieve counter-terrorism and nonproliferation objectives within the framework of a cooperative global security strategy:

1. Reducing the Threat of Terrorism



enhanced international enforcement of the UN counterterrorism mandates that criminalize all forms of support for terrorist networks;


wider cooperation against terrorist threats through regional groupings, the Group of Eight Industrialized Democracies, Interpol, building on the concept that a terrorist threat against one nation is a threat against all nations and that terrorists must not find safe harbor anywhere;

2. International Diplomacy and Enforcement



the use of economic and financial incentives, trade and technology assistance, and security assurances to induce compliance with international disarmament and counterterrorism agreements;


the use of targeted economic sanctions, including financial sanctions, travel bans, and arms embargoes, to enforce compliance with international arms control agreements;


cooperative containment efforts to isolate and weaken regimes that refuse to comply with international disarmament and counterterrorism mandates;


strengthened conventional deterrence, to provide cooperative security protections against non-compliant or threatening regimes;


the use of the International Criminal Court, the World Court and other legal instruments to hold abusive government leaders accountable to international law;

3. Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction



enforceable international agreements to reduce and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and to regulate the trade in weapons-useable technologies;


expanding the cooperative threat reduction program and related efforts to control and secure fissile materials in the former Soviet Union and globally;


intrusive, no-notice weapons inspections, following the Iraq model, applied regionally in a first phase to enforce a ban on weapons of mass destruction;


the strengthening of the United Nations and other institutions to enforce compliance with international agreements and oversee weapons inspections;

4. Promoting Economic and Political Development



strengthened international diplomatic efforts to prevent and resolve conflict;


large-scale economic development initiatives to encourage democracy, the rule of law, and commercial interdependence, thereby lessening the tendency toward armed conflict and creating incentives for peaceful cooperation;


greater participation in the political process for people everywhere through the promotion of democracy, human rights, the empowerment of women, and freedom of information; all aimed to strengthen the political foundations of societies and promote cooperation and peace;


the development of renewable energy technologies and sustainable development policies that lessen dependence on oil imports and reduce the likelihood of conflict over scarce resources.

That being said, I truly don't believe Iraq was a threat to anyone to begin with, and that the Bush administration intentionally mislead the American people into believing war was necessary. I believe I answered your question though, although I could come up with some more thoughts if you like.

[sam i am]

The new national security strategy reinforced an already existing prejudice within the Bush administration against international treaties and other forms of multilateral cooperation.

Where do have any evidence for this assertion?

The strategy of unilateral preemption is a risky and costly departure from the principles of cooperative diplomacy that have proven effective in advancing international security.

Says who? Actually, there have been nearly as many wars, in raw numbers, since the end of WWII as before this "new world" utopia of international security you extol. Just because Europeans haven't warred (excluding the Cold War, which was enormously costly and destructive), doesn't mean that "principles of cooperative diplomacy" have succeeded in Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and the Pacific. International security has DECLINED, in my estimation, with the rise of terrorism.

enhanced international enforcement of the UN counterterrorism mandates that criminalize all forms of support for terrorist networks.

Where would the trials take place? Who would prosecute and defend? Where would incarceration take place? Who would ensure restitution to the victims of terrorist acts? Too many holes in the swiss cheese of "international law" to have this be workable, especially if some countries or municipalities declared themselves safe havens for "terrorists." What if China took them in? Or Russia? Who's gonna go get them then? Hmmmm?

2. International Diplomacy and Enforcement
the use of economic and financial incentives, trade and technology assistance, and security assurances to induce compliance with international disarmament and counterterrorism agreements; the use of targeted economic sanctions, including financial sanctions, travel bans, and arms embargoes, to enforce compliance with international arms control agreements; cooperative containment efforts to isolate and weaken regimes that refuse to comply with international disarmament and counterterrorism mandates; strengthened conventional deterrence, to provide cooperative security protections against non-compliant or threatening regimes; the use of the International Criminal Court, the World Court and other legal instruments to hold abusive government leaders accountable to international law;.

Again, unfortunately, this falls apart on the enforcement end. When there is a difference of opinion on what construes a "terrorist" or the UN is unable to go in and stop the slaughter of civilians (like Rwanda or Serbia/Bosnia/Croatia), WHO will step forward, if not the US??? But, your argument is AGAINST US unilateralism. If world opinion is against the US, but these horrors continue, your card house collapses.

3. Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction
enforceable international agreements to reduce and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and to regulate the trade in weapons-useable technologies; expanding the cooperative threat reduction program and related efforts to control and secure fissile materials in the former Soviet Union and globally; intrusive, no-notice weapons inspections, following the Iraq model, applied regionally in a first phase to enforce a ban on weapons of mass destruction; the strengthening of the United Nations and other institutions to enforce compliance with international agreements and oversee weapons inspections;;.

This is VERY dangerous. What about India, Pakistan, China, Russia, the UK, France, the US? Would all of these countries also be expected to "eliminate weapons of mass destruction?"

Also, by "enforceable," how do you propose to make it so? Who would regulate the trade in weapons usable technology? What about independently produced such weapons? Who would be in charge of the "intrusive, no-notice weapons inspections?" Should EVERY country give up it's national security for the sake of this idealisitic idea?

The UN cannot even stop tinpot despots from running roughshod over the world (witness Sadaam in 1990/1) - the UN is toothless without the US.

4. Promoting Economic and Political Development
strengthened international diplomatic efforts to prevent and resolve conflict; large-scale economic development initiatives to encourage democracy, the rule of law, and commercial interdependence, thereby lessening the tendency toward armed conflict and creating incentives for peaceful cooperation; greater participation in the political process for people everywhere through the promotion of democracy, human rights, the empowerment of women, and freedom of information; all aimed to strengthen the political foundations of societies and promote cooperation and peace; the development of renewable energy technologies and sustainable development policies that lessen dependence on oil imports and reduce the likelihood of conflict over scarce resources.

Agreed on all points. We found common ground! :eek:

Respect, D_Raay.


P.S. I''d be curious to see what Qdrop would think of your ideas. (lb)