Is America a rogue state?


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"L" and "r" are pretty far apart on the keyboard.

Vive re Gart!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Vive re Gart!

Viva ra levorución, indeed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well if the question had been:
Is Amelica a logue state?

...


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
There are only 20 million of us in a country the size of the USA. Our history is very interesting and not enough of us know it.

I've always wondered why Australia hasn't had the population explosion and/or immigration expansion as did the United States given the amount of places to expand / settle. Is it due more to certain regions being inhospitable to human settlement due to climate or inaccessibility?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Well if the question had been:

Is Amelica a logue state?

...

A Logue State? Sounds Sinister.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urizen wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Well if the question had been:

Is Amelica a logue state?

...

A Logue State? Sounds Sinister.

That would be a Petty.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Or a Donal.


Puns aside, this thread has had some interesting viewpoints. It's important for Americans with and without (abroad) to remember they aren't alone in the world.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If one were a nation that belonged to a council of nations, but they contributed more than everyone else, both financialy and in man power, and even host their headquarters in one's country rent-free, does that make them the rogue state, or the baseline state that others are considered rogue against?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So am I an agent of a rogue state or not? A man needs to know these things so he can act appropriately!


Kryzbyn wrote:

If one were a nation that belonged to a council of nations, but they contributed more than everyone else, both financialy and in man power, and even host their headquarters in one's country rent-free, does that make them the rogue state, or the baseline state that others are considered rogue against?

a good question, if a bit loaded.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So am I an agent of a rogue state or not? A man needs to know these things so he can act appropriately!

ill flank with you, if necessary.

Shadow Lodge

I prefer loaded to broke.

What were we talking about?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

If one were a nation that belonged to a council of nations, but they contributed more than everyone else, both financialy and in man power, and even host their headquarters in one's country rent-free, does that make them the rogue state, or the baseline state that others are considered rogue against?

a good question, if a bit loaded.

Indeed, food for thought.


Kryzbyn wrote:

If one were a nation that belonged to a council of nations, but they contributed more than everyone else, both financialy and in man power, and even host their headquarters in one's country rent-free, does that make them the rogue state, or the baseline state that others are considered rogue against?

I suppose you could make the argument that we are, by virtue of our leadership role and sole superpower status, incapable of being "rogue", regardless of any atrocities we might commit.

It may technically be a valid argument, but seems to miss the point of a "rogue state".


Down with the United Nations, that collection of imperialist thieves and butchers! For a socialist federation of the Universe!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

If one were a nation that belonged to a council of nations, but they contributed more than everyone else, both financialy and in man power, and even host their headquarters in one's country rent-free, does that make them the rogue state, or the baseline state that others are considered rogue against?

I suppose you could make the argument that we are, by virtue of our leadership role and sole superpower status, incapable of being "rogue", regardless of any atrocities we might commit.

It may technically be a valid argument, but seems to miss the point of a "rogue state".

To decide what is rogue, you need to identify what is the baseline.

Do we perform atrocities, or do we enforce the basline against other rogues?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Down with the United Nations, that collection of imperialist thieves and butchers! For a socialist federation of the Universe!

While I don't agree with the sentiment of this post, I do think the UN has outlived it's usefulness.


"To decide what is rogue, you need to identify what is the baseline."

This is just another way of saying what I already said--nobody is a rogue state unless so declared by the American Imperium!

"Do we perform atrocities, or do we enforce the baseline against other rogues?"

Nonetheless, the report is fairly relevatory, making two important points: first, that all sides on the ground committed war crimes with no mention at all of a potential genocide conducted by the Qaddafi force; second, that there remains a distinct lack of clarity regarding potential NATO war crimes.

Not enough can be made of these two points. They stongly infer that the rush to a NATO "humanitarian intervention" might have been made of exaggerated evidence, and that NATO's own military intervention might have been less "humanitarian" in its effects.

Down with NATO, ANZUS, the UN, and U.S. imperialism! For socialist revolution and a better cheeseburger!

Vive le Galt!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
I prefer loaded to broke.
Tracer Bullet, P.I. wrote:
I have two magnums in my desk. One of them's a gun, and I keep it loaded. The other one's a bottle, and it keeps ME loaded.

--Bill Watterson, "Calvin & Hobbes"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
You are thoroughly wrong. The United States is a party to most of the treaties establishing the 'Laws of War' as a formal body of international law. The only portions we are not presently a party to, are the 1977 Protocol 1 addition to the Geneva Conventions and the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. You are correct, however, that thumbing our nose at the ICC is having a lot of diplomatic costs. On the other hand-- considering the political influence that has been applied to the ICC, I'm not so sure I trust that body to do its work impartially either-- so it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation as well. Also-- most of the customs and treaties establishing the Laws of War actually predate the existence of the United Nations (not established until 1945, following the end of World War 2)-- the Geneva Conventions were negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations but the earlier treaties and agreements (such as the Hague Conventions) are at least as important to determining the overall body of International Law covering wars and conflicts.

Hi. My point isn't to launch into an heated debate about what constitutes a rogue state, so let's keep our tempers. On the other hand, I knew posting on this thread was a bad idea...

By "rules of war", I was specifically thinking about the treaties banning modern toys such as DU rounds and submunition bombs. They do not predate the UN, obviously. I wasn't suggesting that the US army was ignoring ALL rules, with a policy of raping women and eating babies.

The diplomatic cost of not endorsing "common rules" that most of the neighborhood, including all of your allies, do accept isn't to be underestimated. Imagine you were living in a town with only one rule, a widely accepted speed limit of 40 mph : how would you consider the one guy speeding along the streets, honking all the way and occasionnally running over pedestrians ?

IMHO, the USA has so much political, economical and military that it COULD play the white knight and abide by most, if not all rules on this matter, UN-born or not, and still get its way.

Reckless use of excessive force seems to be a very wasteful use of US vast assets, as well a a surefire way to ensure that they will have more and more enemies to fight in the future.

That said, there is very few countries on this earth who can claim having a clean nose (Norway perhaps?). But the US truly distinguished itself those last few years by the way it blatantly ignored those rules and treaties (speeding away AND honking if you get my meaning). I suppose that part of it came from an understandable overreaction to 9/11, but now that Al Qaeda is a shadow of itself, maybe it should be time to get back to a peacetime footing (that is, full bore habeas corpus, and no more targeted assassinations abroad).

Silver Crusade

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Nonetheless, the report is fairly relevatory, making two important points: first, that all sides on the ground committed war crimes with no mention at all of a potential genocide conducted by the Qaddafi force; second, that there remains a distinct lack of clarity regarding potential NATO war crimes.

Not enough can be made of these two points. They stongly infer that the rush to a NATO "humanitarian intervention" might have been made of exaggerated evidence, and that NATO's own military intervention might have been less "humanitarian" in its effects.

One could find better sources though-- the U.N. Human Rights Council is (and has been for a long time) an overly politicized and utterly worthless sham group, useful for fielding the complaints of various nations that don't actually have the power or reach to do anything anyway. While I do not trust their biased results, still-- many of the NGO's (including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) are better sources for this sort of info than the U.N.'s HRC.

Regarding NATO War Crimes? Don't think there were any in the air war over Libya (on the part of the military personnel actually conducting the operations, anyway-- the decision to send them in the first place might be another matter). War is a very very messy business and people get killed. Very often, in fact in almost every conflict in human history, some of them have been 'civilians' and non-combatants. Libya's no different in that respect. There are plenty of people out there I'm sure, who'd like to limit "legal" warfare purely to rifles and remove the possibility of ever using artillery or airstrikes again-- some of whom are simply utterly blinded idealists, and some of whom are cynical scumbags trying to make the 'playing field' easier for terrorists and insurgents-- but the continued whining that it must be a war-crime every time a bomb goes astray is complete and utter horses**t. The extra whining that our intelligence info not being 100% accurate represents a war-crime because we relied on the info we had in making targeting decisions, is also total bulls**t.

Now, deliberately falsifying intelligence, and then intentionally using that false intelligence as justificiation for starting a war or for targeting information during a war, might be a war-crime-- on the part of the person(s) who 'cooked' the intelligence, and on the part of politicos and decision makers who knew the intel was false and used it anyway. Still not a war-crime (although sometimes it does result in some tragedy) for those who, in good conscience, used information that was, to the best of their knowledge, the most accurate intelligence available. "Fog of War" is a b***h, but it's reality for any military force that engages in combat operations.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Nonetheless, the report is fairly relevatory, making two important points: first, that all sides on the ground committed war crimes with no mention at all of a potential genocide conducted by the Qaddafi force; second, that there remains a distinct lack of clarity regarding potential NATO war crimes.

Not enough can be made of these two points. They stongly infer that the rush to a NATO "humanitarian intervention" might have been made of exaggerated evidence, and that NATO's own military intervention might have been less "humanitarian" in its effects.

One could find better sources though-- the U.N. Human Rights Council is (and has been for a long time) an overly politicized and utterly worthless sham group, useful for fielding the complaints of various nations that don't actually have the power or reach to do anything anyway. While I do not trust their biased results, still-- many of the NGO's (including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) are better sources for this sort of info than the U.N.'s HRC.

Regarding NATO War Crimes? Don't think there were any in the air war over Libya (on the part of the military personnel actually conducting the operations, anyway-- the decision to send them in the first place might be another matter). War is a very very messy business and people get killed. Very often, in fact in almost every conflict in human history, some of them have been 'civilians' and non-combatants. Libya's no different in that respect. There are plenty of people out there I'm sure, who'd like to limit "legal" warfare purely to rifles and remove the possibility of ever using artillery or airstrikes again-- some of whom are simply utterly blinded idealists, and some of whom are cynical scumbags trying to make the 'playing field' easier for terrorists and insurgents-- but the continued whining that it must be a war-crime every time a bomb goes...

+1. Sorry comrade goblin, but an airstrike could qualify as a war crime only if it was purposefully targeting a purely civilian target. War kills, including innocents. It's why it shouldn't be waged for spurious motives in the first place.

In this case, Qaddagi's forces were on the verge of taking Benghazi and had announced their intent of slaughtering "rebel scums" and their families (that is, lybian civilians involved in the uprising, their cousins, their fathers and their dogs). Time was of the essence.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
While I do not trust their biased results, still-- many of the NGO's (including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) are better sources for this sort of info than the U.N.'s HRC.

A point I believe Prashad made in the first paragraph of the linked article.


Urizen wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
There are only 20 million of us in a country the size of the USA. Our history is very interesting and not enough of us know it.
I've always wondered why Australia hasn't had the population explosion and/or immigration expansion as did the United States given the amount of places to expand / settle. Is it due more to certain regions being inhospitable to human settlement due to climate or inaccessibility?

We could support a population of about 50-80 million...about half of Australia is desert, one quarter is tropical wetland/rainforest/inaccessible and the remaining part ranges from poor to good arable land.

Immigration and Australia (taken from a government website):

At the end of World War II, Australia's population was just more than seven million, with around 90 per cent born in Australia.

The most ambitious phase of Australia's migration program followed the end of World War II. Australia negotiated agreements with other governments and international organisations to help achieve high migration targets.

The agreements, which are no longer in force, included:

- a system of free or assisted passages for United Kingdom residents
- an assisted passage scheme for British Empire and United States ex-servicemen, later extended to ex-servicemen or resistance fighters from The Netherlands, Norway, France, Belgium and Denmark
- an agreement with the IRO to settle at least 12 000 displaced people a year from camps in Europe
- formal migration agreements, often involving the grant of assisted passage, with the United Kingdom, Malta, The Netherlands, Italy, West Germany, Turkey and Yugoslavia
- informal migration agreements with Austria, Greece, Spain, Belgium and other countries.

Economic and humanitarian events around the world subsequently influenced the size and source countries of the Australian program. At various times in the 1950s and 1960s, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia were important migrant source countries.

There were also significant intakes of:

Hungarian and Czech refugees following unrest in those countries in 1956 and 1968 respectively
Chileans following the overthrow of the Allende Government in 1973
Indochinese after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975
Polish after martial law was declared in December 1981.
------

At the moment most Australians believe our population is growing at about the right pace for the country:

The left side of politics - will tell you its at the right level to be economically and ecologically sustainable.

The right agrees because they don't like foreigners (that's a bit simplistic they don't like non white foreigners or communists or gays or people with the wrong religion or people that don't speak English and should go back to where they came from).


@Finn Kveldulfr--Since you prefer Human Rights Watch.

Also, Comrade Le Couard, those aren't my words, although the blue type indicating a link covering only one of the paragraphs might have been confusing. I probably should have put them in quotation marks.

EDIT: It should also be noted that Prashad, stooge of the plutocracy that he is, initially supported, even if half-heartedly, the NATO intervention.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:


Hi. My point isn't to launch into an heated debate about what constitutes a rogue state, so let's keep our tempers. On the other hand, I knew posting on this thread was a bad idea...

My apologies if my tone was overly harsh. Wasn't trying to come off as angry and launching a flame at you.

Smarnil le couard wrote:


By "rules of war", I was specifically thinking about the treaties banning modern toys such as DU rounds and submunition bombs. They do not predate the UN, obviously. I wasn't suggesting that the US army was ignoring ALL rules, with a policy of raping women and eating babies.

You're right in observing that we didn't sign the treaties banning depleted uranium, landmines and submunitions (more on that in a moment). My point is that there are so many other things involved and settled in the 'Laws of War' that the places where we (as a nation) have violated some treaties we're a party to (treatment of prisoners of war), and the recent protocols and treaties that we've decided not to sign and join in on, are a very tiny portion of the overall requirements and commitments involved in the 'Laws of War'-- and we do honor and follow most of it.

Smarnil le couard wrote:


The diplomatic cost of not endorsing "common rules" that most of the neighborhood, including all of your allies, do accept isn't to be underestimated. Imagine you were living in a town with only one rule, a widely accepted speed limit of 40 mph : how would you consider the one guy speeding along the streets, honking all the way and occasionally running over pedestrians ?

IMHO,the USA has so much political, economical and military that it COULD play the white knight and abide by most, if not all rules on this matter, UN-born or not, and still get its way.

Reckless use of excessive force seems to be a very wasteful use of US vast assets, as well a a surefire way to ensure that they will have more and more enemies to fight in the future.

That said, there is very few countries on this earth who can claim having a clean nose (Norway perhaps?). But the US truly distinguished itself those last few years by the way it blatantly ignored those rules and treaties (speeding away AND honking if you get my meaning). I suppose that part of it came from an understandable overreaction to 9/11, but now that Al Qaeda is a shadow of itself, maybe it should be time to get back to a peacetime footing (that is, full bore habeas corpus, and no more targeted assassinations abroad).

Actually, the United States military has been very restrained on the battlefield, to the extent that we regularly put our guys on the ground at greatly increased risk through not using the heavy weaponry we have available because of our concern about preventing unnecessary collateral damage. Part of the problem we have, is that we're still the 'Big Dog on the Porch', so every last little move gets noticed and scrutinized, and other nations would really like to tie our hands-- with treaties that are almost totally meaningless to them, because they can't even make the weapons they're trying to limit by treaty even if they wanted to. Really, I wish that, so long as we're going to be involved in military conflicts at all, that we'd be a little more reckless in our use of force, because although that would lead to more casualties among the native populations of countries we're operating in, we'd bring a lot more American Soldiers home alive who are currently coming home in body bags because we are being so godd**ned careful about NOT using maximum firepower.

The common rules we haven't followed, but should have-- were wrapped around the reasons why we went to war in the first place. How we've conducted ourselves while at war? The basic problem is, there isn't another military in the entire world that can do what the U.S. military can-- so it doesn't matter what we do, we're still gonna catch flack for it one way or another. No matter how hard we work to make precision munitions and use them with pinpoint accuracy-- no system is 100% perfect, and there's always the problem of false targeting information-- so, while the U.S. military has managed to avoid causing civilian/non-combatant casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan to an extent almost unheard of in military history-- because civilians and non-combatants have still died at our hands... we get accusations like the ones you've repeated in this post. We CAN NOT do better on the battlefield without sacrificing a lot more of our own Soldiers in the process doing it. IMO, sucks to be anyone caught underfoot in a war-zone, but it ain't worth my comrades' lives to go even farther in preventing all collateral damage.

The treaties we've refused to sign and the reasons why?

The 1977 Protocol 1 treaty added to the Geneva Conventions basically says it's okay for insurgent groups, active combatants, to not wear distinguishing uniforms that set them apart from the civilian population, and also sets out the idea that it's okay for them to live among and blend into the civilian population except when they're actually carrying and using their weapons. No, there's no f***ing way we should sign or honor that treaty-- it's basically meant to excuse insurgents from obeying the laws of war that all organized armies are expected and required to follow, it puts the civilian population at greatly increased risk, virtually guarantees that a lot of civilians are going to be mistaken for combatants and will be shot and killed as a result... and it was put together and thrust on the U.N. by a lot of smaller nations that wanted to find ways to inconvenience the major powers in conducting war.

Regarding depeleted uranium-- most countries love this treaty 'banning' depleted uranium, because they can't make it and put it to work anyway. I don't think we should give it up, to satisfy the nations who are scared of it-- because there isn't anything else that is quite as effective for making armor-piercing munitions and better tank armor. If you're going to fight a war at all, fighting it half-a**ed, instead of going out there to win, is actually going to cause more damage in the long run, than being quick, violent and destructive, and getting it over with. Sorry, but this one is the crying of nations who don't have our toys, trying to keep us from using the capabilities we have available.

Cluster munitions and land mines-- we have applied our technology to making sure that we do not use munitions that are going to litter the battlefield for generations afterwards. We're doing our best to making sure that our stuff self-destructs with a fairly short shelf-life, so that we're not endangering local populations through leaving unexploded ordinance there for years and years after the fighting has ended. However, it again comes back to the point that there really isn't anything else that can do the same job that cluster munitions do. Yes, there's a lot of countries that would like the United States to sign that treaty and honor it-- the real reason is NOT the humanitarian bulls**t that people would like to sell you on-- it's that most of these nations can't manufacture and use the sorts of weapons the U.S. manufactures and deploys in battle, and therefore would like to tie our hands so that they don't have to worry about having weaponry used against them that they can't make and use anyway.

The United States has actually remained on a peace-time footing, while our politicians have used the 'war' as an excuse to abuse, misuse, and rearrange our criminal statutes the whole time. Really, that's one of the scary parts-- from an economic standpoint-- y'all really haven't seen the U.S. on a war-time footing since World War 2 ended. But it'd be nice if they stop abusing habeas corpus rights over here.

Silver Crusade

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

@Finn Kveldulfr--Since you prefer Human Rights Watch.

Also, Comrade Le Couard, those aren't my words, although the blue type indicating a link covering only one of the paragraphs might have been confusing. I probably should have put them in quotation marks.

EDIT: It should also be noted that Prashad, stooge of the plutocracy that he is, initially supported, even if half-heartedly, the NATO intervention.

And in this case, I'm pretty sure Human Rights Watch is correct-- war crimes were being committed, but not genocide. I'm not so sure Mr. Obama was guilty of intentionally using false intelligence, but yes, the information he was quoting as justification for launching the intervention may have been somewhat suspect, at least. The Anti-Gaddafi insurgents ran a pretty good propaganda campaign on the USA, Europe, and the U.N. to drum up support for the intervention.

My point earlier btw-- just in case I was unclear-- wasn't to argue that the politicians were right in deciding to intervene in Libya, just that on the part of the NATO military forces involved, the air war was conducted about as cleanly as was reasonably possible-- so I am dubious about claims that the NATO Air Forces involved committed war crimes.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:


IMHO, the USA has so much political, economical and military that...

Smarnil-- just in case my tone is off in that post, my long reply to this same post was intended as discussion of the issues, not any sort of personal attack.

Also, as with the reply to Comrade Anklebiter-- I'm not defending the failures on the part of the U.S.A.'s leadership regarding the recent wars we've engaged in, the reasons and justifications we've given for taking military action, etc.-- a lot of that has been very questionable at the least!

However, although we do have our share of bad apples in the ranks too (any military does), I am defending the conduct of the U.S. Military at war, because we (in the military) really have tried to conduct ourselves in warfare properly, and have mostly done a pretty good job at it.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:


However, although we do have our share of bad apples in the ranks too (any military does), I am defending the conduct of the U.S. Military at war, because we (in the military) really have tried to conduct ourselves in warfare properly, and have mostly done a pretty good job at it.

I want to point out no other military in history has had as long a period of continuous engagement as the USA military has recently and had as few civilian causalities, military causalities, or incidents. Our armed forces have done an amazing job time and time again, generally with little real support from their country, meager resources for what they are doing, and so much uncertainty on how their efforts were going to end.

If anything is to be a real credit to what we are as a nation it is the armed forces and their continued efforts and behavior.


I am not reassured.


Also, back to Libya.

I am not familiar with the Foreign Policy Journal, but it can't be any more biased than the my usual round-up of commie websites. I had posted on Majer in the Government Folly thread last year, but that link is no longer active.

Frog God Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:
That said, there is very few countries on this earth who can claim having a clean nose (Norway perhaps?).

That's not what those poor monks at Lindisfarne said.


Kryzbyn wrote:

If one were a nation that belonged to a council of nations, but they contributed more than everyone else, both financialy and in man power, and even host their headquarters in one's country rent-free, does that make them the rogue state, or the baseline state that others are considered rogue against?

It depends on what value you assign to the UN doesnt it? If it's a lousy organisation then being the prime mover and shaker doesnt really enhance your esteem.

.
I think the point is that nations are, by definition, not bound by normative standards of behaviour. Any putative nation which is subordinate to some higher law is probably not really a nation - rendering 'rogue state' to be something of an empty label. I dont think Iran care that the US doesnt consider them part of the "good guys club", do you?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nope I sure don't. Sanctions are a b%@++, though.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

We could support a population of about 50-80 million...about half of Australia is desert, one quarter is tropical wetland/rainforest/inaccessible and the remaining part ranges from poor to good arable land.

Immigration and Australia (taken from a government website):

<snip>

Very informative. Thanks!

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

At the moment most Australians believe our population is growing at about the right pace for the country:

The left side of politics - will tell you its at the right level to be economically and ecologically sustainable.

The right agrees because they don't like foreigners (that's a bit simplistic they don't like non white foreigners or communists or gays or people with the wrong religion or people that don't speak English and should go back to where they came from).

The "right" sounds awfully familiar to some of the niche we have here in the U.S.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Nope I sure don't. Sanctions are a b#@+$, though.

Yeah, you guys have lots of power. I don't really object to "Rogue state" meaning "A state which doesnt behave in the way that the strongest powers want them to". But that's hardly the image conjured in people's minds by the term.

.
I think the concept of some over-arching "international law" is a misnomer. It sounds nice, but no actual state is bound by those "laws" unless they want to be (Did you know that the US was ordered to pay reparations to Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice? The US's response was to just declare that they wouldnt be bound by its dictates).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's generally bad form to ask a nation guard against the spread of communism, then throw them under the bus when they're caught doing so.


Me? I'm relatively happy to be a supporter of the US (in a "I can't think of anything better" kind of way), I don't intend this as particularly strident criticism, merely a comment on the ease with which we justify things by "our team".

I think it's more important to recognise propaganda by one's own side than by the opposition, that's all.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I meant being sued in international court.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I meant being sued in international court.

Then I dont understand.

Quote:
It's generally bad form to ask a nation guard against the spread of communism, then throw them under the bus when they're caught doing so.

I dont think those responsible for taking the US to the International Court of Justice had previously asked the US to guard against the spread of communism. Nor was the UN set up to "guard against the spread of communism".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll try for a Goodwin point. But it's funny, and please don't take it too seriously.

Are we the bad guys?


Steve Geddes wrote:
I dont think Iran care that the US doesnt consider them part of the "good guys club", do you?

I would guess that it has caused them some consternation recently.


Kryzbyn wrote:
It's generally bad form to ask a nation guard against the spread of communism, then throw them under the bus when they're caught doing so.

That doesn't sound at all like what happened in Nicaragua.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I dont think Iran care that the US doesnt consider them part of the "good guys club", do you?
I would guess that it has caused them some consternation recently.

I'm sure they care about sanctions, threats of attack and other direct expressions of power.

I'm willing to bet they don't lose any sleep over being labelled "baddies" though. That's my point. There isn't any real distinction between a "rogue state" and a "staunch ally" other than approval - its all subjective, agenda driven political speak. Nations aren't citizens of the world and they aren't bound by some overarching legal framework. The heart of nationhood is power - if you can't hold your position through power or the threat of power, you aren't a state (or won't remain one for long, anyhow).

There's nothing more legitimate than that (unfortunately). Differing people will advocate different standards from the moral authority of democratic mandate to appeals to divine authority. We shouldn't get carried away with our own country's propaganda, in my view. We have a moral obligation as citizens (particularly in a rich, democratic country) to critique our own government's actions. Falling into the trap of "goodies versus baddies" is something to be avoided, in my view.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

National governments make sociopathic eight year olds look good. In all cases, I figure.

Liberty's Edge

Here ya go.


That is the lamest post I have ever seen, bro.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Um, dude, the "evil" is implied. There is no "not evil" houstonderek.

Liberty's Edge

Plus, I was bored. Dave Mason came on. Eh.

51 to 100 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Is America a rogue state? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.