| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so we have a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like it, flouts human rights violations, spent most of the last century threatening anyone they didn't like with nukes, is taking increasingly opressive measures against its own people in the name of security, has a massively corrupt government, invades other nations for their natural resources... and more.
does this behavior classify America a rogue state, just one too big and powerful to take down? you know what, there are plenty of americans around here to speak for themselves. Given some of the other messageboards around here, i know that several of our regular posters will have something to say on the subject. let's keep this civil people and, let's face it, i'd love to be convinced i'm wrong on this one.
that was then. we're supposed to be making progress, remember? we can't do that if we keep falling back into old bad habits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Listen, ANZUS boy, you just keep sending us troops and stop asking questions.
Btw, your premise is all wrong. I mean, not that "we" don't do those things, but the only rogue states are those so-declared by the American Imperium.
Now, go get me a sandwich.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so we have a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like it
Hee hee!
so we have a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like itHee hee!
Listen! Do you smell something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, no; we all usually bathe frequently and use deodorant.
You're probably around a lot of gamers, so........outside of that circle, most Americans are pretty far up there on the scale of personal hygeine.
So by your definition of rogue state...i.e. being smelly people, I'd say we're pretty much not a rogue state.
Is this thread a troll bait?
10% troll bait, 5% trolling, 85% curiosity.
Sadly true.
Is this thread a troll bait?
I'd say pretty fragrantly.
I'm thinking we're actually more of a rouge state.
edit.....you allready said that, and my mental spellchecker corrected it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The US is the standard that rouge states aspire to.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
FuelDrop--
Reality Check: the only thing that separates the USA from most of the other countries around the world (except the ones that are clearly much more corrupt and/or farther off the rails than we are), is that the USA has the power to do these things and get away with it. Other states are complaining and whining-- NOT because they wouldn't be doing exactly the same things (or worse) IF they had the USA's power and reach, but rather because they don't have the power, reach and ability to get away with all the dirty things they'd like to be doing, and are therefore rather envious.
Pretty much all states are "rogue" states to the extent that they can get away with it, and "good international citizens" to the extent that they have to be in order to thrive, survive, and accomplish their goals for the future. 'Enlightened self-interest' unfortunately has been, and so far as we can tell, always will be, the way of international relations. Doesn't make it right-- but I don't see it changing in our lifetimes. People who look at history and current affairs, and who still cannot see that-- are hopelessly deluded and hallucinating about 'basic human goodness' that does not really exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We mascara anyone that opposes us.
Aaaaand, pres man for the win.
Ok lets get this straight. Your coming on a messageboard in which you know 1)the majority of the posters are from the US. In which you know 2) most americans are exceptionally patriotic. 3)Starting a thread that is a direct verbal attack against their country. 4) You admit is at least partially trolling and likely to piss off the moderators. 5) In which you already have a very known opinion that is unlikely to change given the very forceful language in your original post. And you plan to have a civil conversation about the topic? Really? Hence I will say no more about the subject since you have already decided the outcome and the thread in general is toxic from the get go.
I wouldn't go that far, MM or FD.
America is Fierce!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least a rogue state need allies to flank ennemies.
I would be more worried about a barbarian state.
Doo-de-doo-de-doo.
Smash ANZUS through workers revolution!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@MM: yes, many posters here are patriotic americans, that's kind of the point. patriotism does not equal a blind aproval of everything your country does, and i've actually been very impressed with how well our residents have taken this thread in their stride. their willingness to go with this thread without letting it degrade into name-calling ect breaks about a half-dozen steriotypes, which is a pleasant surprise. thanks all.
@Finn: i'd call you a cynic... but because that would require a blind fold, ear plugs and a learning disability i'm going to go with realist. i think that my 'problem', if you will, is that i come from a country that has never even tried being imperialistic, has never even had a civil war, has never launched an invasion (though we've aided our allies or sent troops for the UN). this may be because we're a young nation and haven't had time, or because our neibours are too powerful, or something like that, but reguardless we seem to get along well enough just minding our own business. since world war 2 europe's settled down a lot, a prime example of changing behaviors as for almost all of recorded history European conflict has been nearly constant.
so yes, while i keep my eyes open to human nature, i do believe that we can progress... even if it's merely from open warfare to political backstabbing and assassination. at least it's quieter and less messy.
FD: I usually avoid most of the off-topic and political discussion on this board because of threads just like this... so I don't know your history here. What country do you hail from?
@SR: i'm an australian. make of that what you will.
oh, and for the record... assume everything i say is intended to be humourous unless proven otherwise. after all, if you look at some of my suggestions on the boards (wizards hiding in mobile boxes, high explosive familiars, mages with interplanar resteraunt chains, that sort of thing) you'll realise that i don't treat gaming as life-or-death. my politics are much the same, and i vote with the sad assurance that no matter who you vote for the end result is a corrupt incompetent in charge.
this thread came to be because the question popped into my head at one point, and i decided to disable my thought filter for a moment and let it out into the world.
@CA: i'm not actually familiar with the acronim ANZUS, though no one else seems confused by it. what does it mean? oh, and i've got a list of names for you. they're to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty
Our military alliance with you.
thanks.
@SR: i'm an australian. make of that what you will.
oh, and for the record... assume everything i say is intended to be humourous unless proven otherwise. after all, if you look at some of my suggestions on the boards (wizards hiding in mobile boxes, high explosive familiars, mages with interplanar resteraunt chains, that sort of thing) you'll realise that i don't treat gaming as life-or-death. my politics are much the same, and i vote with the sad assurance that no matter who you vote for the end result is a corrupt incompetent in charge.
this thread came to be because the question popped into my head at one point, and i decided to disable my thought filter for a moment and let it out into the world.
So noted. For the record, since bits of your response seem slightly defensive, I wasn't setting my sights on you. And some of your points, while hyperbolic or silly, do contain an element of truth.
In future, you might want to append a smiley face or something else to posts like this otherwise you will continue to draw heat from folks who think you are serious because they don't know your track record.
Cheers!
you know what they say: there's many a true word spoken in jest.
the only reason i'm hesitant to use smiley faces is that i've never been too sure on what each one is supposed to mean. is :) supposed to mean happy while ;) means joke, or does :) mean joke and ;) mean sarcasm? then there's :p, ;p, :b, ;b, ect... and my brain goes into meltdown.
oh well, the only way to learn is to experiment. consider your advice taken in full.
'Enlightened self-interest' unfortunately has been, and so far as we can tell, always will be, the way of international relations. Doesn't make it right-- but I don't see it changing in our lifetimes. People who look at history and current affairs, and who still cannot see that-- are hopelessly deluded and hallucinating about 'basic human goodness' that does not really exist.
Basic human goodness does exist; it's built into 96% of all people.
Then there are the other 4%. The psychopath (or sociopath) who feels no empathy or remorse. For these, there is no goodness at all; only winning or losing, at any cost whatsoever.
Unfortunately, we still haven't figured out a good way to keep them from achieving positions of wealth and power. So we continue to suffer.
What is "International Law"?
Every lasting and competent nation I know of does those things or is protected by a nation that does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i come from a country that has never even tried being imperialistic, has never even had a civil war, has never launched an invasion (though we've aided our allies or sent troops for the UN). this may be because we're a young nation and haven't had time, or because our neibours are too powerful, or something like that, but reguardless we seem to get along well enough just minding our own business. since world war 2 europe's settled down a lot, a prime example of changing behaviors as for almost all of recorded history European conflict has been nearly constant.
so yes, while i keep my eyes open to human nature, i do believe that we can progress... even if it's merely from open warfare to political backstabbing and assassination. at least it's quieter and less messy.
Sorry FD I am going to point you to a few things in our history you need to look up.
Imperialism..
The Territory of New Guinea was the Australia-controlled, League of Nations-mandated territory in the north eastern part of the island of New Guinea, and surrounding islands, between 1920 and 1949. The south-eastern part of the island of New Guinea was a separate Australian colony, the Territory of Papua, until 1949.
As for revolutions and civil wars....
Not counting Aboriginal resistance to occupation.
The first attempt at a rebellion against the Crown was The Castle Hill Rebellion of 4 March 1804, also called the Second Battle of Vinegar Hill. Irish rebels who were convicted and transported to New South Wales staged a rebellion and lost badly.
The Rum Rebellion of 1808 was the only successful armed takeover of government in Australia's history. The Governor of New South Wales, William Bligh, was deposed by the New South Wales Corps under the command of Major George Johnston, working closely with John Macarthur, on 26 January 1808, 20 years to the day after Arthur Phillip founded European settlement in Australia. Afterwards, the colony was ruled by the military, with the senior military officer stationed in Sydney acting as the Lieutenant-Governor of the colony until the arrival from Britain of Major-General Lachlan Macquarie as the new Governor at the beginning of 1810.
he Eureka Rebellion of 1854 was an organised rebellion by gold miners which occurred at Eureka Lead in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. The Battle of Eureka Stockade (by which the rebellion is popularly known) was fought on 3 December 1854 and named for the stockade structure erected by miners during the conflict.[1] Resulting in the deaths of over 30 people, it was the most significant conflict in the colonial history of Victoria.
The Darwin Rebellion of 17 December 1918 was the culmination of unrest in the Australian Workers' Union which had existed between 1911 and 1919. Led by Harold Nelson, some 1000 demonstrators marched on Government House at Liberty Square in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia where they burnt an effigy of the Administrator of the Northern Territory, John Gilruth, and demanded his resignation.
Their grievances were against the two main Northern Territory employers, Vestey’s Meatworks and the Commonwealth of Australia, and concerned political representation, unemployment and taxation. Gilruth left Darwin soon afterwards under the protection of HMAS Encounter, while the Vestey company permanently closed its Darwin operations in 1920.
Political Assassinations
John Paul Newman (8 December 1946 – 5 September 1994) was a member of the New South Wales state parliament and Member for the seat of Cabramatta. He was the first elected politician to be assassinated in Australia
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.
What is "International Law"?
This one is easy...
What is called international law is mainly a body of international treaties, most of them sponsored by the United Nations.
The USA didn't subscribe to most of those about rules of war, or liability for war crime, which is perfectly their right but has a heavy diplomatic cost. They also are in the habit of ignoring those they did sign when convenient (like the Geneva convention about POWs). They are not alone in this, but it's quite rare among other law-driven democracies.
is smarter than he looks.
I think i may have FUBARed a little there, but in my defence i was refering to australia as an independent nation, rather than a british colony. that means 1901 is the start for my arguement, as before that it was in the name of mother england... and there's a nation that can't even begin to claim a history of peaceful coexistance. however, i was not clear in my meaning and thus your points remain entirely valid.
to be honest i completely forgot about the Eureka stockade, which hurts me as that's always been one of my favorite parts of australian history. as for New Guinea... you're right on all counts.
Could someone please remind me to put my brain into gear before i start posting? it'd save a lot of embarisment :) (hope that's the right one!)
is smarter than he looks.I think i may have FUBARed a little there, but in my defence i was refering to australia as an independent nation, rather than a british colony. that means 1901 is the start for my arguement, as before that it was in the name of mother england... and there's a nation that can't even begin to claim a history of peaceful coexistance. however, i was not clear in my meaning and thus your points remain entirely valid.
to be honest i completely forgot about the Eureka stockade, which hurts me as that's always been one of my favorite parts of australian history. as for New Guinea... you're right on all counts.
Could someone please remind me to put my brain into gear before i start posting? it'd save a lot of embarisment :) (hope that's the right one!)
No problem - our history is very interesting and I wish more Australians knew about it.
What is "International Law"?This one is easy...
What is called international law is mainly a body of international treaties, most of them sponsored by the United Nations.
The USA didn't subscribe to most of those about rules of war, or liability for war crime, which is perfectly their right but has a heavy diplomatic cost. They also are in the habit of ignoring those they did sign when convenient (like the Geneva convention about POWs). They are not alone in this, but it's quite rare among other law-driven democracies.
So if a rogue state is
"...a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like it..."
Doesn't that make every state a rogue state? They sign or don't sign by choice, don't they? And they follow those treaties or don't by choice (they can always withdraw).
I don't think it means anything - its a term of propaganda or PR, at best, IMO. The good guys exercise their sovereign rights, the bad guys are rogue states (or imperialists, depending on ones politics).
Also one thing to consider is that some nations don't necessarily "ignore" international agreements "whenever they feel like it". Instead they look for loopholes that allow them to act in certain ways without actually going against the agreements. It is the rules lawyer approach to RAW versus following RAI. You can see this with respect to the US taking prisoners and claiming they are not soldiers in another country's army thus not having to apply the Geneva conventions to their treatment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basic human goodness does exist; it's built into 96% of all people.Then there are the other 4%. The psychopath (or sociopath) who feels no empathy or remorse. For these, there is no goodness at all; only winning or losing, at any cost whatsoever.
Unfortunately, we still haven't figured out a good way to keep them from achieving positions of wealth and power. So we continue to suffer.
More like, it's "socially conditioned" into most people as they're growing up, for all of our good... (that's back to the "enlightened self-interest" on the individual scale).
We talk about 'inhumane' treatment... yet, as others have pointed out elsewhere on these boards, and as I have seen all too much very real evidence thereof, get into a situation where the usual social controls come off the rails... and so-called inhuman treatment of other human beings seems to be a very very very common human response. Put a different way-- a hallmark of human behavior in conflict situations seems to be the ability to be utterly cruel and vindictive to human beings outside of your in-group. A lot of the people doing these things are not your "4%"... they're part of the 96%, who nonetheless choose the extreme response for dealing with others when civil law is no longer enforced.
so we have a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like it, flouts human rights violations, spent most of the last century threatening anyone they didn't like with nukes, is taking increasingly opressive measures against its own people in the name of security, has a massively corrupt government, invades other nations for their natural resources... and more.
Baring the "With nukes" part, this has simply been standard operating procedure for any powerful government since the dawn of time. Powerful nations take advantage of weaker nations in order to maintain power.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is called international law is mainly a body of international treaties, most of them sponsored by the United Nations.The USA didn't subscribe to most of those about rules of war, or liability for war crime, which is perfectly their right but has a heavy diplomatic cost. They also are in the habit of ignoring those they did sign when convenient (like the Geneva convention about POWs). They are not alone in this, but it's quite rare among other law-driven democracies.
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.
We, in the USA, also do follow most of the 'Laws of War' even now, contrary to your assertions. However, our notable failings as a nation, under G. W. Bush (and to a lessening extent since his reign) to follow a few of the articles (notably on the treatment of POW's, and our justification for attacking Iraq) have been sufficiently spectacular and spectacularly bad, that they have attracted a lot of attention. Those failings still do not change the fact that we have been faithfully adherent to most of the Laws of War; and those portions that we have broken, our criminally negligent officials have still respected enough to try to rationalize and explain away the violations we have committed as somehow being situations that those treaties don't actually apply to (personally, I find those rationalizations almost as despicable as the violations themselves).
Regarding the last assertion-- The United States is not alone in this at all... the problem is, 1. the USA is an open society with freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and a lot of freedom of information-- as well as some glaring intelligence leaks-- therefore we got caught doing it. 2. See my first post on this thread about 'rogue states'-- the United States is powerful enough to get away with it-- doesn't make any of it right-- but other nations who might get caught don't do these things or are sneakier about it, because the repercussions on them would be far worse. 3. Pretty sure most of the so-called "liberal democracies" have these skeletons in their closet-- rules and treaties of international law they are a party to, that they break all the time, but they are far better at not getting caught at it than the USA is (also see pt 2-- it's more important to them that they not be caught at it). And, also note that in the USA-- we have a major problem with sheep in our voting population-- to the credit of some of the other "liberal democracies", their own people would raise much more of a fuss than our population has, if their government were implicated in these sorts of issues.
Also, gonna say it again (but it's something I've said many times before)-- I believe G. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, etc., should have been impeached and removed from office (and faced further criminal charges) for the violations of the Laws of War that these men ordered while they were in office. Because those treaties were signed/ratified by the USA, they were (according to the U.S. Constitution) part of U.S. Law, should not have been ignored, and those violations do meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" thresh hold for impeachment established by the Constitution. Unfortunately, Congress was derelict in their duty to remove such criminally abusive officials at the top of our government-- we had a problem with enforcing our own law in this country, let alone with respecting International Law on this issue.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Finn: i'd call you a cynic... but because that would require a blind fold, ear plugs and a learning disability i'm going to go with realist. i think that my 'problem', if you will, is that i come from a country that has never even tried being imperialistic, has never even had a civil war, has never launched an invasion (though we've aided our allies or sent troops for the UN). this may be because we're a young nation and haven't had time, or because our neibours are too powerful, or something like that, but reguardless we seem to get along well enough just minding our own business. since world war 2 europe's settled down a lot, a prime example of changing behaviors as for almost all of recorded history European conflict has been nearly constant.
so yes, while i keep my eyes open to human nature, i do believe that we can progress... even if it's merely from open warfare to political backstabbing and assassination. at least it's quieter and less messy.
Being a realist (and a bit of a cynic)-- IMO, Australia hasn't played the Imperialist game (much), because you don't have the power and capability to do so. Europe's settling down partly because of the lack of power and reach issue, partly because "enlightened self-interest" is finally causing people to wake up over there and realize that continuing to tear Europe apart in violent conflicts doesn't help anyone there.
As others have noted-- Australia's got more than a few "skeletons" in the closet, and your nation's record on treatment of the Aborigines is at least as bad as our record in the USA on treatment of the Native Americans (I understand that Australia is taking great strides in making amends for that lately though)-- which doesn't make Australia any better or worse than other nations, just shows that hardly any nation's hands are really clean.
I hope we as a species can progress away from all of this-- I'd agree that it's possible... I just don't expect it to happen as soon as rational people would like, and that any such changes will take a long time to develop and become constant (if we can get that far before we wipe ourselves out through our own mistakes).
|
You need to give me examples to support your 'theory.' Yes, I will admit that we have used our military might a number of times in the modern area, but other than first with Japan and later with Russia, I don't remember us threatening anyone with nukes. Also, I need some examples of us fouting human rights other than isolated situations that were blown out of perportion by the media. Of which if you looked into it, you would find similar issues in most industrialized countries.
As for the cracking down on security, I am assuming that you are referring to pat downs and metal detectors in airports and large venues....really, last I check that still didn't stop anyone from moving freely about this county and with little to no effort from Americans leaving the county and coming back. I'll take a pat down over "Can I see your papers?"
Name a country that their people doesn't think their government is corrupt.
What natural resources are you talking about? Last I checked I am paying $4/gallon for my gas which is a 40% increase after we invaded a country that had large oil reserves.
So basically, your contention is that America is a rogue state because we have invaded other sovern countries. Countries that are a hell of a lot more rogue states than the good old USA.
'Merica. F@#$ Yea!
The word of the day is: Flagrant.
fla·grant
[fley-gruhnt]
adjective
1. shockingly noticeable or evident; obvious; glaring: a flagrant error.
2. notorious; scandalous: a flagrant crime; a flagrant offender.
3. Archaic . blazing, burning, or glowing.
The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty
"Our" military alliance with "you".
Quotation marks added.
For a worker's republic of Australia as part of a socialist Asia!