We know what's best for you

[CyberRose]

That was Hitler's justification for Sudetanland.

Who gives a shit?

 

[CyberRose]

I would imagine the same attitude is displayed with regards to crime and punishment. Any suggestion that the penal system should be reformed would be met by a curt "What about the victim"? Then, when you've given him your reply, he pretends not to have noticed it and repeats the question.

Here's something I often find myself repeating...you're a cunt

 

[nino_savatte]

The only cunt on this thread is you, sad sack.

Remember this? This is where it all started.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=105037

Ask a question, ignore the reply, repeat the question. That's you.

 

[poster342002]

Who gives a shit?

Because it's the very historical precedent and reason why pre-emptive war came to be outlawed - nomatter how "noble" the justification supposedly was. Thanks to the idiocy of US/UK, that princapal has now been turned on it's head and junked - and we can expect all manner of unsavoury regimes to now follow suit citing US/UK as justification.

Basically, a pandaora's box has been opened that we all thought closed for good after WW2.

 

[CyberRose]

Because it's the very historical precedent and reason why pre-emptive war came to be outlawed - nomatter how "noble" the justification supposedly was. Thanks to the idiocy of US/UK, that princapal has now been turned on it's head and junked - and we can expect all manner of unsavoury regimes to now follow suit citing US/UK as justification.

Basically, a pandaora's box has been opened that we all thought closed for good after WW2.

Godwin's law!

 

[CyberRose]

The only cunt on this thread is you, sad sack.

Remember this? This is where it all started.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=105037

Ask a question, ignore the reply, repeat the question. That's you.

No no, that's YOU!

Anyway, sorry for calling you a cunt, I honestly didn't think that you'd see it because I was under the impression I was on ignore

 

[nino_savatte]

No no, that's YOU!

Anyway, sorry for calling you a cunt, I honestly didn't think that you'd see it because I was under the impression I was on ignore

You realise that posters can be taken off of ignore...or hadn't you thought of that? No, you're too thick.

 

[CyberRose]

You realise that posters can be taken off of ignore...or hadn't you thought of that? No, you're too thick.

But what was the point of putting me on ignore in the first place?! I assume it was because you didn't want to read my posts (and we both know that's because you have a real difficult in debating with somebody like me who you can't push around and bully like you do with other posters) so what's changed now?!

Anyway, I shall end this petty squabbling here and promise I won't post anything else that's off topic, I've said what I wanted to back to the topic...

 

[poster342002]

Godwin's law!

So, no attmept at refuting the argument then? I suggest you go and yell "godwin's law" at the numerous orgs that cited the same precedent at the time.

 

[nino_savatte]

But what was the point of putting me on ignore in the first place?! I assume it was because you didn't want to read my posts (and we both know that's because you have a real difficult in debating with somebody like me who you can't push around and bully like you do with other posters) so what's changed now?!

Anyway, I shall end this petty squabbling here and promise I won't post anything else that's off topic, I've said what I wanted to back to the topic...

No, you're the one who has trouble debating. You clearly have no interest in proper discussion and use ever single underhanded trick in the book to get your own way. But you've been called on it, pal.

Accusing me of being a "bully" is pretty weak. I think most people know that I'm not a bully. The only ones who would support your contention tend to share your dishonesty.

 

[CyberRose]

So, no attmept at refuting the argument then? I suggest you go and yell "godwin's law" at the numerous orgs that cited the same precedent at the time.

My point is (and this is also the point of Godwin's law!) is that you can't say Hitler did this, Hitler did that, therefore EVERYBODY will do the same!

The fact is, the UN is built on two (contrdictory) principles - the sovereign right of nation states; and the self determination of peoples.

It is a complete fallacy to say that because Hitler was parading under the illusion of "saving a peoples from a humanitarian crisis" (if that is what you were trying to say), then there is no legitimate claim to assist a peoples facing a humanitarian crisis or servere oppression

 

[nino_savatte]

It is a complete fallacy to say that because Hitler was parading under the illusion of "saving a peoples from a humanitarian crisis" (if that is what you were trying to say), then there is no legitimate claim to assist a peoples facing a humanitarian crisis or servere oppression

Really? How do you square the hypocrisy of the 'West''s response to Zimbabwe's humanitarian crisis to the headlong rush to invade and occupy Iraq under the cover of 'humanitarism'?

 

[CyberRose]

Really? How do you square the hypocrisy of the 'West''s response to Zimbabwe's humanitarian crisis to the headlong rush to invade and occupy Iraq under the cover of 'humanitarism'?

Exactly that, hypocrisy!

Altho lets face it, it was "security" and not "humanitarian" concerns that were given as the primary reason for going into Iraq (any humanitarian justifications were to make the decision wash better with the public)

 

[nino_savatte]

Exactly that, hypocrisy!

Altho lets face it, it was "security" and not "humanitarian" concerns that were given as the primary reason for going into Iraq (any humanitarian justifications were to make the decision wash better with the public)

Rubbish, the message that came from the pro-war party was "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who kills his own people (sic)". Humanitarianism was a part of the reason given.

 

[CyberRose]

Rubbish, the message that came from the pro-war party was "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who kills his own people (sic)". Humanitarianism was a part of the reason given.

Humanitarianism was a justification, not the reason

 

[ViolentPanda]

Humanitarianism was a justification, not the reason

That's a bit of a semantic quibble, though, as "humanitarianism" (in line with the late-Clinton era thrust toward "humanitarian intervention") was presented as part of a complex of "reasons why we should invade Iraq". yes it was a justification, but it was politically represented as a reason (along with WMDs). We know it' was a justification in hindsight, rather than knowing it at the time, it was a reason then, it's known to have been a justification now, if you take my meaning.

 

[nino_savatte]

That's a bit of a semantic quibble, though, as "humanitarianism" (in line with the late-Clinton era thrust toward "humanitarian intervention") was presented as part of a complex of "reasons why we should invade Iraq". yes it was a justification, but it was politically represented as a reason (along with WMDs). We know it' was a justification in hindsight, rather than knowing it at the time, it was a reason then, it's known to have been a justification now, if you take my meaning.

The Balkans, too, were presented in a similar fashion.

 

[nino_savatte]

Humanitarianism was a justification, not the reason

Semantics.

 

[CyberRose]

That's a bit of a semantic quibble, though, as "humanitarianism" (in line with the late-Clinton era thrust toward "humanitarian intervention") was presented as part of a complex of "reasons why we should invade Iraq". yes it was a justification, but it was politically represented as a reason (along with WMDs). We know it' was a justification in hindsight, rather than knowing it at the time, it was a reason then, it's known to have been a justification now, if you take my meaning.

I know what you mean, but pretty much every person posting on U75 will tell you that "humanitarianism" was not the reason we went to war with Iraq! Even before March 2003 people would have told you that.

However, if we look at other conflicts, such as those in the Balkans, it is reasonable to say (altho some will no doubtedly disagree) that we went in because of humanitarian reasons (ie that was the ultimate reason)

 

[camouflage]

I know what you mean, but pretty much every person posting on U75 will tell you that "humanitarianism" was not the reason we went to war with Iraq! Even before March 2003 people would have told you that.

However, if we look at other conflicts, such as those in the Balkans, it is reasonable to say (altho some will no doubtedly disagree) that we went in because of humanitarian reasons (ie that was the ultimate reason)

I beg to differ, that's the accepted reason, the BBC rote-reply as it were. The real reasons remain obscure.

Of couse, simple minded folk who beleive what the papers tell them to beleive will assume that yes, NATO swept into the Balkans to save the people from baddies.

 

[CyberRose]

Semantics.

Not really. For example, most people on U75 will say that the reason we went to war was for economic reasons (ie the oil factor), I would say the reason we went to war was for security reasons (altho I would disagree that was a correct assertion). I don't think anyone would say we went to war for humanitarian reasons (ie that being the main reason) otherwise we'd not be reluctant to get involved more in African conflicts etc.

The humanitarian aspect was, as I'm sure you'll agree, a nice little "extra bonus" that they thought would be achieved as a result of the war, but it was never the primary reason for starting the war (which is my point)

 

[CyberRose]

I beg to differ, that's the accepted reason, the BBC rote-reply as it were. The real reasons remain obscure.

What's that supposed to mean?! That you refuse to believe why the Balkan conflicts happened but have no alternative argument whatsoever!? Lol!

Of couse, simple minded folk who beleive what the papers tell them to beleive will assume that yes, NATO swept into the Balkans to save the people from baddies.

Unless you're prepared to give an alternative reason as to why the West became involved in the Balkans then I don't think your in any position to be calling people "simple minded" for blindly believing anything that's shoved in front of their faces. What's the difference between them doing that and you point blank to refuse to believe a version of events when you seemingly have no idea why?

Btw, the people of the Balkans were crying out for the West to intervene and the fact the West was extremely reluctant to become involved at all gives a hell of a lot of weight to the humanitarian argument...

 

[camouflage]

What's that supposed to mean?! That you refuse to believe why the Balkan conflicts happened but have no alternative argument whatsoever!? Lol!


Unless you're prepared to give an alternative reason as to why the West became involved in the Balkans then I don't think your in any position to be calling people "simple minded" for blindly believing anything that's shoved in front of their faces. What's the difference between them doing that and you point blank to refuse to believe a version of events when you seemingly have no idea why?

Btw, the people of the Balkans were crying out for the West to intervene and the fact the West was extremely reluctant to become involved at all gives a hell of a lot of weight to the humanitarian argument...

Ok, here's one, I'm not saying it's the real reason, Milosovic was an cunt by all accounts, but that fact itself is relevenat to the thread. The point here being that you obviously hadn't the slightest clue that this point of view even existed. It's a big world son, unlike the Starwars Trilogies it's full of many differing points of view.

I found this quote very interesting:

"The fall of communism has been transformed into the fall of Russia. The Russian catastrophe was deliberately planned in the West. I say this because I was once involved in these plans which, under the pretext of fighting an ideology, in fact prepared the death of Russia.

"Contrary to a widely held view, communism did not collapse for internal reasons. Its collapse is the greatest possible victory of the West. This colossal victory has created a planetary power. The end of communism is also the end of democracy: our era is not only post-communist, it is also post-democratic ... This is because democracy means pluralism: that requires the existence of at least two more or less equal powers During the Cold War there was democracy at world level, a global pluralism within which capitalism and communism coexisted. Now we live in a world dominated by a single force, by a single ideology and by a single globalist party The Western countries are dominant but they are also dominated, because they are progressively losing their sovereignty to what I call "supra-society". This planetary supra-society consists of commercial enterprises and non-commercial organisms whose zones of influence are superior to those of nations. The Western countries are subjected, like other countries, to the control of these supranational structures. But the sovereignty of nations was a constituent part of pluralism and democracy at world level. The present dominating power is crushing sovereign states. The process of European integration which is taking place under our eyes is causing the disappearance of pluralism within this new conglomerate, to the benefit of a new supranational power." ('Figaro', 24 July 1999)

 

[CyberRose]

Ok, here's one, I'm not saying it's the real reason, Milosovic was an cunt by all accounts, but that fact itself is relevenat to the thread. The point here being that you obviously hadn't the slightest clue that this point of view even existed. It's a big world son, unlike the Starwars Trilogies it's full of many differing points of view.

Actually I am aware such theories exist. And I'm sure there is an element of truth in them. However, the article refers only to the Kosovan conflict in 1999, and the NATO action that took place in the absence of UN approval. I was referring to the intervention by UN forces in the previous Balkan conflicts. The West simply was not interested, despite the people affected by that conflict crying out for help (intervention). The fact the West was not interested (Clinton said it was a matter for Europe to deal with) pours cold water on the theory put forward by your article somewhat (altho it does refer to a different conflict).

There are lots of reasons why the 1999 campaign occurred, and many of them, as you point out, have nothing to do with humanitarian issues (for example, did the EU really want a large influx of asylum seekers?)

But this is all by the by. I have never, in this thread, attempted to justify specific conflicts through humanitarian means. All I am saying is that we should not rule out military intervention should humanitarian crisis break out

I found this quote very interesting:

Again, the reluctance of the West to become involved in the Balkans paints a somewhat different picture than presented in that quote...