Black Dog

Uh...what? Hugo quite clearly states that rights are (and I quote) " Rights aren't conferred, they're a part of being human. What's conferred is the respect or lack thereof others have for them." Therefore, rights are not "created" for the superior. In any case, I'm not gonna bother getting into this discussion because it was already dealt with in the other thread and I think your pretzel like twisting about there speaks to the validiaty of your argument.

That's ridiculous. By the same logic, your rights can be abrogated by those with the authority to do so and if you lack the means of defending your rights, you must simply accept it? Thus slavery, repression, murder and torture are acceptable. (And, upon reading the thread you mention, I see that you attempt to divorce the concept of rights from the concept of morality: a futile gesture as there can be no morality without an understanding of rights and no rights without morality. Destroy eithe rconcept and you are left with the philosophy and worldview of the predator.)

Governement proclimations don't do anything but give me what I already have by virtue of being a human being. The only reason such rights are codified by government is because the system, of legal codes taht are the framework of the state. If no government existed there would be no need to articulate fundamental rights. That's not permission: all it is saying is "these are the rights which we, the state, will (theoretically) not infringe upon." The collary to this is that there are rights the state allows itself to infinge upon. You're not making a great case for government here. basically, you are saying our great claim to fame is that we infinge upon indiviudal rights less often and less egregiously as others. Whoop-dee-doo. In any case, you are simply validating my statement that governments can only take away rights, not give them. The state was the people (hence "one people, one reich"). So the individual that served teh state was serving the whole German people. Essentially, it was just an extreme version of the ideology you've been espousing throughout this thread. Democracy's biggest success is in creating the illussion of representation. Again, as was articlulated before, the differences between Canada and Nazi germany are one's of degree, not principle.

The UN declaration did not create the rights it contains anymore than the U.S Declaration of Independance, the Charter, the Magna Carta etc. The rights and rreedoms these documents articulate are self-evident. I can exercise all my rights without permission of the government. I can talk to whom I wish, do what I wish with my person, beleieve what I wish, etc. etc. There are other rights that I am entitled to that are curbed only by the power of the state. the lesson here? Governments are far better and far more active at curbing rights than they are facilitating their free play. No. Rights and freedoms are not a marketing tool or the property of the state. Oh? The Nazi's whole ideology was founded on the exaltation of the nation over the individual ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer, ein Volk"). In the Soviet Union, the collective (party, state etc.) was paramount. The main trait shared by these and other authoritarian regimes is the sublimation of individual rights into the whole. The difference betweem these countries and our democracies is one of degree. Now, I'm, generally not anti-state. But the power of the state is but a tool and can be misused. The bigger the government and more all-encompassing it becomes, the more likely it is to abuse its power.

Let me be the first to say that my arguments have been more influenced by Hugo than the other way around.

The rights and freedoms I am entitled to would not change, only the extent to which they are curbed by the state. The fact that people are denied their rights around the world (most often by governments) does not nullify the existence of those rights. They may be unable to exercise their rights and may be denied their freedoms, but they are still entitled to them. And here we see the basic contradiction in your position. You stated earlier: which, along with the above implication that individual rights only exist at the say-so of government seems to indicate that my rights and freedoms are the property of the state to advance or dispense with as it sees fit. If such is the case, what good are our freedoms? What makes our government or (as you put it) "way of life" any more superiour than that of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? If our main claim to fame is that we don't choose to abrogate citizen's rights with the same frequency (though the state reserves the right to do so), then ( as Hugo stated much earlier) our differences are simply a matter of degrees. the basic principle remains the same. Basically, the soldier you see fighting for freedom today can just as easily be the one who marches you to the gulag tomorrow. Herein lies the problem and the fundamental reason why humanitarian intervention is a dead end.

...and thus also far less likely to be called upon to support the implementation of his policies. The U.S. assisted the military overthrow of Venezuala's first democratically elected president and has been acussed of formenting the coup attempt gainst current president Chavez. Costa Rica has never been subject to much foreign intervention and was a viable, homegrown democracy before it fell into the U.S 's sphere of influence. I also find it fascinating that you ascribe all these instances of direct and indirect foreign intervention as "nation-building". Really, such a concept was not even a stated objective of U.S foreign policy until after the First World War and the introduction of Wilson's 14 points. Prior to that, U.S. policy was fixed around the Monroe doctrine, which was (in practice if not in content) a declaration of U.S. supremacy over the hemisphere. Now, as then, the purpose of U.S. interventionism it is to assure the primacy of U.S. interests (mainly economic). If states subject to American intervention are able (as in some of the cases you cited) to cobble together a democracy, so be it: however, in such cases where democracy is an impediment to U.S. interests, democracy can be undermined or destroyed entirely. That's the lesson we can glean from history.

You're using the existence of rules to try and negate the farcical nature of applying rules to armed conflict. For example, isn't it more than a touch ridiculous to deem certain forms of killing to be against the rules? Realy, what difference does it make if the men you kill die by mustard gas or bunker buster bomb? They are no less dead. You are far to willing to accept war as a condition of civilization when it is a failure of civilization.

That's not true. These rights were not granted to me by government, a fact many governments recognize (Canada is a signatory of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."). So, if our rights are guaranteed and ours by the fact of our birth, by what authority does the government and its agents have to take those away? I would take that seriously if our nation were nott complicit in so many acts the involve abrogating the rights and freedoms of others in order to serve the "natonal" interest.

What a ridiculous and outdated concept is honour. What's honourable about killing someone? Again with the spurious and unproven statements that war is about preserving rights and freedoms. Rights and freedoms (such as my right to exist and to do what I wish with my own self) are not products of the government, yet only the government is able to take those rights and freedoms away. In other words, as Canadians , our way of life is superior to othes and therefore any abrogation of those others' rights is acceptable because we're doing it for their own good?

Interesting that all these are examples of nations where the military is used to control the doemstic population. My options ar elimited. I can vote, I can lobby, I can advocate change, but there's no guarantee theose actions wil have any affect on policy, nor is the government under any obligation to listen. In fact, the government is the only body with the power to use violence and force to shut down opposition and to push its policies. That option is not available to me. So really, what little power we have is granted to us by the state and can just as easily be revoked by the state.

Ad hominems are logical fallacies, which are is a statement based on flawed reasoning or illogic. They are flaws in the structure of an argument as opposed to an error in its premises or conclusions. In other words a fallacy is not the same a as lie, which is a false statement. Speaking of fallacies... Yet later you point out indiviuals (such as ex-Airborne Clayton Matchee) who do not deserve respect. Why is that? He meets all the criterea you set down for being a "better person than most" in that he volunteered to put his life at risk to help others. Yet because of his actions in the torture and beating death of another human being, he is not deserving respect? Why is this individual censured for his actions, while others whose actions have similar results (ie: dead human beings) are praised and indeed, deemed "better individuals than most"? I think the problem here is that the military boosters seemed divorced from the unpleasant fact that "protecting our rights and freedoms" results in the abrogation of other's rights and freedoms. In other words: our freedoms are built on the corpses of others. Which raises the question: why are our freedoms so much more valuable than those of the "others"?

Whatever happened to: I guess they forgot the clarification..."unless those who harbour them are valued allies and clients who buy up lots and lots of our own military hardware." Bingo.

U.N.-mandated investigation into the February assassination of Rafik Hariri has confirmed that a truck bomb blast killed the former premier, the investigation's chief said Friday.

AG, simply repeating a opinion (ie. "soldiers fight for our rights and freedoms") over and over again does not a convincing argument make. Obviously we don't buy it. So why not try to demonstrate how soldiers, in your view, defend freedom. I maintain that soldiers are the insturments by which the elite maintain their hegemony and prevent challenges to the established order. You haven't really shown otherwise. If anything, your statement that "politicians start wars...and have their citizens fight them" proves my point.

And if the military chooses to disregard the civilian oversight? What about those branches of the military (such as JTF2) that have no civilian oversight (interestingly enouh, this same branch has been highly active against Canadian citizens). That doesn't mean that the military is never going to act against the will of government or even at the behest of government against its own people. What makes you think the interests of civil government and military in the U.S. aren't aligned? The potential for abuse is there. I think, though, that the greatest dange ris the military acting as an insturment of government against the people. There are many examples of that. Yes, yes and yes. Saddam was the head of a rinky-dink, broken down military that posed no threat to his immediate neighbours, let alone the world. Ya I know, I should have attributed it.

Interesting debate here. How much influence and scrutiny does the public currently have over the cops? How many times have you heard of cops getting off for crimes that would land ordinary citizens in jail for a significant period of time (Amadou Diallo anyone?)

Already underway here, here, here, and here.

Ah yes. 'cause there's no way, no how those n******s could ever manage their own affairs, right? I mean really, all the instability, disease, strife, poverty, corruption and violence must be in the water or something. It certainly can't be related to the first go-round of colonialism, could it? And it certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that so many of the tin-pot dictators that thrive in Africa are propped up by the west to serve their interests, would it? It's not as though the west is supplying these goons with the weapons, the training, and the wealth that allows them to keep power and plunder the land and oppress the populace, is it? Isn't that what you meant to say? but there's one truth in the morass of crap you're spewing Argus and that's that aid won't make a difference in Africa or anywhere else in the developing world. The unspoken and ignored colllarary to that is, however, that it won't make a difference so long as the west continues to undermine its own token efforts at releiving the suffering of the world's people by pushing policies devoted to advancing western interests first, regardless of the suffering those policies create.

the military is unaccountable to the citizens It obeys the civil authorities it is subordinate to so long as it suits its interest to do so. (this is especially true in heavily militarized countries). So basically, we ar ebeing asked to put our faith in an institution that is outside even the paltry limits we place on other government bodies in the hope sthat they will never act against the people. That's a lot to take on faith. Ot hav eyou never heard teh phrase "military coup"? I think it is a medical picture, that some how the insurgents got a hold off... I was refering to why these poor bastards were put in a position to have their faces blown off by people who, prior to a couple of years ago, posed no threat to them. I'm not questioning the intelelct of military personnel, but i do question the critical thinking abilities of those who are conditioned to accept a certain worldview as a condition of their job. No offense. That's sophistry. You already I know I don't believe the premise that they are defending our freedoms etc etc (n matter how freverently they believe it to be so) I hate to be pedantic, but that was Patton that said that. Personal attacks don't support your position one iota. That wasn't the question: the question was are people who "serve their country" better people than those who do not. Tell me, what would happen to someone who was conscripted, but refused to serve? In both world wars, IIRC, deserters and people unwilling to kill and die were impriosned or even killed by the state they were suppossed to be defending.

continued... Ever heard of the War Measures Act? The Winnipeg general Strike? the Northwest Rebellion? The state maintains its hegemony by force. the police and military are the insturments. Revisionist history. Who created the ideals we build our society on (and fail to live up to)? Philosophers and thinkers. Not soldiers. No it probably would be pretty traumatic for them, I agree. But again: its worth asking why theses pictures even exist. So, if iraqi insurgents kill U.S. journalists..that's not terrorism, but a legitimate act of war? Just because people can't or won't inform themselves doesn't mean they should not be informed. By broadcast I mean they shouldn't be easily available (ie. shown on TV). But censorship is a slippery slope. I don't beleive in it. I agree. But that's not always how it is used. That's a lie. the statistics are incomplete. The Iraq Body Count's data is, by its own admission, not comprehensive. estimates range up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed. that doesn't count the number of insurgents or armed forces members killed on the Iraqi side. Also, you're abusing the statistsics. Iraq has a population of 26 million compared to almost 300 million in the U.S.A., thus the numbers aren't comparable.

It's easy: This was in response to the assertion mad eby somebody that the soldiers dying in Iraq were dying "for a cause they believed in". Basically, I'm asking how many really believe in the "cause" and how many joined for financial, career, educational reasons (in other words, not to kill Arabs). Capice? The reason they are having recruiting problems is the people aren't willing to die for the cause. Maybe people are starting to figure out that, as Clint Eastwod said, "Dying ain't no way to make a livin'." That's my point: you say they are defending our freedoms. They say they are defending our freedoms. Our leaders say they are defending our freedoms. But are they really defending our freedoms? I mean, the soldiers of the Wermacht believed they were defending the freedom of the German people: does not make it so. In every case, the rhetoric of war is designed to obscure the reality. You must learn to separate the two. Why? What would these blokes who, allegedly, are defending my freedoms, do if I were to exercise those freedoms? In World War 1 we were an imperial vassal drawn into an utterly pointless imperial squabble. In World War 2 we were responding to German aggression. In each case, our main purpose was to protect western interests and ensure our allies remained the dominant economic and political powers. Korea, though under a UN fig leaf, was an operation desigtned to protect U.S. territorial intwerests from competition.

You misread the numbers. from the same page: It's also worth noting that many Arabs fled with the intention of returning to their homes when the violence ended, but most were not permitted to return to their villages, and a combination of military and legal devices were employed in the ensuing years to destroy or expropriate Arab homes and lands. On paper, but the reality is somewhat different. I would argue that any body that can be superseded by a forign military force at will can hardly be said to be in control. Of course Israel would say that. I just wonder why, if Israel finds the occupied territories to be such dangerous terrorist havens, do they continue to pay for thousands of Jews to settle there? Sure. I think Arafat did this as part of a two-pronged strategy to drive the Israelis out. It was a failure and Abbas seems more devoted to non-violent resistance. Because I believe the Occupation, the inhumane practices of the State of Israel to be the key to the conflict and the cause of terrorism. The P.A. has doen its part, but the overwhelming reality is its Israel's show and thus, their responsibility. But that's my point, they are not "just as much to blame" for their plight.

Ever watched one of those drunk driving videos? Ever wonder why they use graphic images in those types of public safety ads? Anyway, it's a stupid analogy because accidental death iis a social problem, not a political one. In other words: world leaders aren't sending people to die in front of trains. Interesting, but your statistics only mention American casualties. I expect if most canadians lives in walled, armed compounds and only ventured out in patrols, our crime rate would be significantly smaller. But tell me: what is the mortality rate in Iraq for Iraqis (y'know, the people who were suppossed to benefit from this war)?