Oh ok, well if we do have the ability I guess we’ll only find out by going down a path of determining it. One way would be to talk nasty and threaten with might and then bomb. Another would be discuss (like the West has done with North Korea) and use a carrot as well as a stick (sanctions etc, not bombing).
I favour the latter, many people favour the former.
So, back to the original question:
Diogenes - 25 November 2007 05:24 PM
This is a question for you, CM. It has a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Iran has an opportunity to acquire a nuclear arsenal. It is entirely up to you whether or not they will be allowed to do so. If you say ‘yes’, they get it. If you say ‘no’, they don’t. What do you say?
Well, CM, you get to make the decision. You can either let Iran have nukes or not. Which is it?
Well that’s the whole point. I don’t get to make the decision and neither should I. Neither should you.
So for me to pretend to make a decision is meaningless. I don’t have legitimacy, so the meaning and outcome of my decision is entirely different to what it would be if I did.
You picked a dumb example. Talks, like those you continually mock, currently appear to be making progress.
But I’m sure if they had been bombed a couple of years ago it would have all worked out much better by now.....
No, you picked a dumb example:
In particular, North Korea has taken strong and positive steps. It seems serious about ending attempts to terrorise the region through nuclear and missile blackmail. North Korea has taken one major decision in its trip from being a dangerous, hermit terrorist into a somewhat civil nation
It never did anything of the sort: Its nukes were solely developed in self-defence against the dire threat of US nuke-imposed imperialism (you know, “just look at Iraq” and stuff). Now you’re saying peacemongers talked him down, saying what, that the US isn’t that big a threat to everyone, after all?
I vaguely recall an anguished yet firm outcry from the left over Bushitler’s snide and ugly “Axis of Evil” remark, saying pretty much the same thing, which ultmately forced Pingpong to test that nuke. He had no other recourse, I was told.
He can pose as morose and chagrined for the cameras of the critical masses all he wants: Pingpong’s setting off his nuke was and remains blackmail.
You are impossible to engage in any debate. I’m not going to bother because you cannot do so without making shit up.
Whoa. Check out CM’s unwaivering resolve; slamming his fist down all manly and shit. Bam. No lack of resolve, there, in making his decision to no longer “debate” with me. Wap. No more educational of long-winded, wishy-washy Kumbaya stuff like he’s been writing about the pros and cons of nukes in Iranian hands.
Would that Dutch revolutionary Tanja Nijmeijer, who had her own “Che” moment a whiel back and joined FARC to fight for the people, had such steely resolve.
BOGOTA—The army stumbled on the handwritten diary during a raid on a guerrilla camp. It lay near the embers of a communal kitchen where fleeing rebels left their breakfast untouched.
“I’m tired, tired of the FARC, tired of the people, tired of communal living. Tired of never having anything for myself,” wrote the author, a 29-year-old Dutch woman.
The first known person from outside Latin America to join the region’s largest rebel army wasn’t just disillusioned. Like most FARC foot soldiers, Tanja Nijmeijer apparently wasn’t permitted to leave.
“This would be worth it if I knew I was fighting for something. But I don’t really believe that any more,” she wrote on Nov. 24, 2006.
From the entries, written in Dutch, English and Spanish, Ms. Nijmeijer emerges as a passionate left-winger who is occasionally homesick and has had second thoughts since joining the guerrillas in 2002.
“I don’t know where this project is going. How will it be when we come to power? The girlfriends of the commanders in Ferrari Testa Rossas, with breast implants, eating caviar? It seems like it,” one entry said.
I see a LotR sequel all but written… You go, girl! And Tanja, too!
Well that’s the whole point. I don’t get to make the decision and neither should I. Neither should you. So for me to pretend to make a decision is meaningless. I don’t have legitimacy, so the meaning and outcome of my decision is entirely different to what it would be if I did.
None of this Deep Thought ever stopped you from deciding to lecture us on leaving Iraq NOW, even though you should lack the legitimacy to do so, according to yourself.
Thats flatout the lamest Eurodrivel I’ve read in a long time; I can’t even attempt to match it.
Oh ok, well if we do have the ability I guess we’ll only find out by going down a path of determining it. One way would be to talk nasty and threaten with might and then bomb. Another would be discuss (like the West has done with North Korea) and use a carrot as well as a stick (sanctions etc, not bombing).
I favour the latter, many people favour the former.
So, back to the original question:
Diogenes - 25 November 2007 05:24 PM
This is a question for you, CM. It has a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Iran has an opportunity to acquire a nuclear arsenal. It is entirely up to you whether or not they will be allowed to do so. If you say ‘yes’, they get it. If you say ‘no’, they don’t. What do you say?
Well, CM, you get to make the decision. You can either let Iran have nukes or not. Which is it?
Well that’s the whole point. I don’t get to make the decision and neither should I. Neither should you.
So for me to pretend to make a decision is meaningless. I don’t have legitimacy, so the meaning and outcome of my decision is entirely different to what it would be if I did.
You state firm opinions about other nations and what should or shouldn’t happen all the time, but on this, you see you’re stuck when you answer, so you take a copout. You know its potential disaster if Iran gets nukes, but you can’t bring yourself to admit its necessary to try to prevent it from happening. If you did, you’d be admitting that you also see Iran as an underling that requires discipline.
Well that’s the whole point. I don’t get to make the decision and neither should I. Neither should you. So for me to pretend to make a decision is meaningless. I don’t have legitimacy, so the meaning and outcome of my decision is entirely different to what it would be if I did.
None of this Deep Thought ever stopped you from deciding to lecture us on leaving Iraq NOW, even though you should lack the legitimacy to do so, according to yourself.
Thats flatout the lamest Eurodrivel I’ve read in a long time; I can’t even attempt to match it.
Dude, you hold the clear record on lecturing around here. You simply have no powers of self-analysis.
Mindblowingly obvious, but leaving Iraq is the fastest way to remove your troops from somewhere they should never have been. They were not there legitimately and they only have restrospective legitimacy now because there simply isn’t really any other choice. I carry no legitimacy is disagreeing with the war. I disagree with it BECAUSE of the lack of legitimacy.
But I wouldn’t expect you to ever understand.
Oh ok, well if we do have the ability I guess we’ll only find out by going down a path of determining it. One way would be to talk nasty and threaten with might and then bomb. Another would be discuss (like the West has done with North Korea) and use a carrot as well as a stick (sanctions etc, not bombing).
I favour the latter, many people favour the former.
So, back to the original question:
Diogenes - 25 November 2007 05:24 PM
This is a question for you, CM. It has a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Iran has an opportunity to acquire a nuclear arsenal. It is entirely up to you whether or not they will be allowed to do so. If you say ‘yes’, they get it. If you say ‘no’, they don’t. What do you say?
Well, CM, you get to make the decision. You can either let Iran have nukes or not. Which is it?
Well that’s the whole point. I don’t get to make the decision and neither should I. Neither should you.
So for me to pretend to make a decision is meaningless. I don’t have legitimacy, so the meaning and outcome of my decision is entirely different to what it would be if I did.
You state firm opinions about other nations and what should or shouldn’t happen all the time, but on this, you see you’re stuck when you answer, so you take a copout. You know its potential disaster if Iran gets nukes, but you can’t bring yourself to admit its necessary to try to prevent it from happening. If you did, you’d be admitting that you also see Iran as an underling that requires discipline.
My opinions on what other nations should or should not do carry no legitimacy but they are somewhat based on what CAN or SHOULD be done in a legitimate manner. I am fully aware that many people here put no stock in actual legitimacy, but instead invoke their own (personal or national) fake legitimacy instead.
I’m not stuck for any answer. Your question isn’t legitimate. It’s meaningless. Whatever answer I give will result in your inferring something which isn’t true.
You want me to say ‘I make the decision that they don’t get nukes’ and then I’m treating them like an underling.
Or if I say ‘I say they get nukes’ then I’m instantly dooming the world.
Neither of which would be remotely accurate.
It’s potential disaster if Iran gets nukes - I agree. But that doesn’t give me the legitimacy to decide that they won’t get them.
I think it’s a good idea that the world, via the appropriate international institutions, tries to prevent it happening. But that’s completely different from me saying ‘You don’t get nukes’. I have no legitimacy. Any one country in the world has very little legitimacy in telling another nation what it can and can’t do. But international institutions, particularly where that nation is a member, has a great deal of legitimacy. And yes, I realise most people here don’t accept that legitimacy. But on that score most people here are in a distincy minority.
I get it. Some folks, like, say, cops are legitimate. If they see someone do something deemed illegitimate by law (ie. popular consensus), they step in and build a case within the framework of said laws Then a court of law convenes to test the case’s il-/legitimacy to the best of its ability.
The US didn’t wait for the cops or courts (global consensus via UN) post 9/11, they played vigilante. Being habitual offenders in that respect, and violently so, the world at large grew more relcuctant to deem 9/11 illegitimate, if it indeed ever was. Instead the focus shifted primarily to the issue of the false arrest of Iraq and capital punishment (always illegitimate) of Saddam Hussein.
If you don’t read them their rights the perps get to walk. Thems the rules.
Where does it say that Israel should be wiped off the map? As I’ve pointed out before, he seems to refer to something someone else said, and he refers to an occupying regime. As you’ve highlighted.
I happen to know you are not that stupid CM, so what’s the point of this? The occupying regime is not the US in Iraq, it’s Israel in...Israel, or Palestine as he calls it in his speech.
I get it. Some folks, like, say, cops are legitimate. If they see someone do something deemed illegitimate by law (ie. popular consensus), they step in and build a case within the framework of said laws Then a court of law convenes to test the case’s il-/legitimacy to the best of its ability.
The US didn’t wait for the cops or courts (global consensus via UN) post 9/11, they played vigilante. Being habitual offenders in that respect, and violently so, the world at large grew more relcuctant to deem 9/11 illegitimate, if it indeed ever was. Instead the focus shifted primarily to the issue of the false arrest of Iraq and capital punishment (always illegitimate) of Saddam Hussein.
If you don’t read them their rights the perps get to walk. Thems the rules.
I have no idea how you get this to mean that the murder of thousands of people on 9/11 is in any way legitimate.
This is a perfect example of why you are impossible to engage with most of the time.
Where does it say that Israel should be wiped off the map? As I’ve pointed out before, he seems to refer to something someone else said, and he refers to an occupying regime. As you’ve highlighted.
I happen to know you are not that stupid CM, so what’s the point of this? The occupying regime is not the US in Iraq, it’s Israel in...Israel, or Palestine as he calls it in his speech.
To believe that you’d have to believe that a government is the same thing as a piece of land.
I think it was interpreted and reported that way and people have just repeated it without question.
The occupying regime is the Zionist government which occupies areas that have been previously agreed are for the Palestianian people, and within which continues to building illegal settlements.
Anyway, let’s hope the lastest round of peace talks goes somewhere. Good on Bush to for doing it, even it took 7 years.
I have no idea how you get this to mean that the murder of thousands of people on 9/11 is in any way legitimate.
9/11 itself is pretty much ignored by the world at large; the “events” and “motivation” that (may have) inspired it have indeed since been widely “legitimized” as an act of self-defence in response to the US’ armed and violent (re-)actions.
Well it’s the prestige that his office holds. Also, presumably he’s got some intelligent people assisting.
They seemed to work really well in Oslo some time ago. Came unstuck though.
True though, you make an important point. I vividly remember Blair explaining that if he got consent from Parliament to go to war, he’d definitely be able to then fix the Israel/Palestinian situation, as it would be a natural flow-on effect.
He never did get around to it.
Mindblowingly obvious, but leaving Iraq is the fastest way to remove your troops from somewhere they should never have been. They were not there legitimately and they only have restrospective legitimacy now because there simply isn’t really any other choice. I carry no legitimacy is disagreeing with the war. I disagree with it BECAUSE of the lack of legitimacy.
But I wouldn’t expect you to ever understand.
No, we’ll never understand your asinine insistence upon holding to a lie like that. Whether or not we were right or wrong to go back into Iraq is a matter of opinion. Whether or not Iraq materially violated the terms of the cease-fire a few thousand times, thereby legally justifying a resumption of war is a matter of indisputable fact.
You are impossible to engage in any debate. I’m not going to bother because you cannot do so without making shit up.
I’m afraid you can’t do that. Not ten posts ago you praised unwaivering Dialogue as being the cause for Pingpong’s coming around to being one of the gooder, benigner guys. Bush Dialogue managed to get Palestinians and Israelis to shake hands.
Mindblowingly obvious, but leaving Iraq is the fastest way to remove your troops from somewhere they should never have been. They were not there legitimately and they only have restrospective legitimacy now because there simply isn’t really any other choice. I carry no legitimacy is disagreeing with the war. I disagree with it BECAUSE of the lack of legitimacy.
But I wouldn’t expect you to ever understand.
No, we’ll never understand your asinine insistence upon holding to a lie like that. Whether or not we were right or wrong to go back into Iraq is a matter of opinion. Whether or not Iraq materially violated the terms of the cease-fire a few thousand times, thereby legally justifying a resumption of war is a matter of indisputable fact.
Whether the US was ‘right or wrong’ seems to depend on who is making the decision.
I would strongly disagree with your last sentence. I’ve done so before and said why.
You are impossible to engage in any debate. I’m not going to bother because you cannot do so without making shit up.
I’m afraid you can’t do that. Not ten posts ago you praised unwaivering Dialogue as being the cause for Pingpong’s coming around to being one of the gooder, benigner guys. Bush Dialogue managed to get Palestinians and Israelis to shake hands.
As opposed to what? You offer nothing except violence, which hasn’t done anyone any good lately.
Mindblowingly obvious, but leaving Iraq is the fastest way to remove your troops from somewhere they should never have been. They were not there legitimately and they only have restrospective legitimacy now because there simply isn’t really any other choice. I carry no legitimacy is disagreeing with the war. I disagree with it BECAUSE of the lack of legitimacy.
But I wouldn’t expect you to ever understand.
No, we’ll never understand your asinine insistence upon holding to a lie like that. Whether or not we were right or wrong to go back into Iraq is a matter of opinion. Whether or not Iraq materially violated the terms of the cease-fire a few thousand times, thereby legally justifying a resumption of war is a matter of indisputable fact.
Whether the US was ‘right or wrong’ seems to depend on who is making the decision.
I would strongly disagree with your last sentence. I’ve done so before and said why.
Yep, you have, and your position wouldn’t be any more valid now than it was then.
Mindblowingly obvious, but leaving Iraq is the fastest way to remove your troops from somewhere they should never have been. They were not there legitimately and they only have restrospective legitimacy now because there simply isn’t really any other choice. I carry no legitimacy is disagreeing with the war. I disagree with it BECAUSE of the lack of legitimacy.
But I wouldn’t expect you to ever understand.
No, we’ll never understand your asinine insistence upon holding to a lie like that. Whether or not we were right or wrong to go back into Iraq is a matter of opinion. Whether or not Iraq materially violated the terms of the cease-fire a few thousand times, thereby legally justifying a resumption of war is a matter of indisputable fact.
Whether the US was ‘right or wrong’ seems to depend on who is making the decision.
I would strongly disagree with your last sentence. I’ve done so before and said why.
Yep, you have, and your position wouldn’t be any more valid now than it was then.
Your nation’s internal decisions don’t inherently carry legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from the governing regime or law as an authority. On earth, at this present time, legitimacy comes from the UN (autonomous constituents who have combined to cooperate towards some common good). I know you hate that, but that is how it is. Simply not liking it doesn’t make it not true. A major problem with this war, and one that still exists as evidenced by your view, is that the vast majority of the people that matter see very little legitimacy in the US being in Iraq. That makes it almost impossible to get anywhere. And yet there are those (such as you) who continue to deny it and who still try and claim it (on the basis at some inaccurate desparate pot shots at a few aircraft in a non-mandated no-fly zone).
Wesley Clark touches on the problem here
http://www.today.ucla.edu/campus/wesley-clark_iraq/
The administration’s biggest mistake, he elaborated, was the failure to appreciate the importance of law and the concept of legitimacy in the conduct of American affairs abroad.
“So by virtually every standard — purpose, effectiveness, the use of minimal force, protection of the innocent, proportionality, last-resort — we have undercut the legitimacy that should have been derived from the legal authority to undertake these operations,” he said.
Legitimacy of the Intervening Force. The British believe that for any S&R;operation to be successful, the intervening force’s legitimacy must be established. This legitimacy is derived from three key sources: domestic support for the intervention (in this case, the American and British people); the international community; and most important, the community being rebuilt. Most interviewees felt that in Iraq the Coalition had even today far less legitimacy than was the minimum necessary for success, for reasons including the lack of a second UN resolution; the failure to locate any WMD; excessive civilian casualties owing to the indiscriminate use of force; the failure to properly secure Iraq after the invasion, mainly because of insufficient forces and misunderstanding the situation; a lack of cultural awareness; hugely underestimating the degree of likely opposition; a continued inability to protect ordinary Iraqis; and failure to quell the growing insurgency.
Legitimacy of the Supported Government. Similarly, the local government must be accepted as legitimate by a significant proportion of the population. Clearly, establishing such legitimacy in an ethnically divided country such as Iraq is difficult. Most interviewees felt that a succession of errors had undermined the Coalition’s efforts to establish the legitimacy of the Iraqi authorities, including the promotion to powerful positions of Shia émigrés and opposition spokespersons who had little support within Iraq; continued attempts to install leaders acceptable to the U. S.; promoting a democratic system that favored the Shia majority; focusing on national rather than local and regional governance; a premature handover of power to the Iraqis; failure to plan for and prevent the government’s succumbing to preexisting ethnic, tribal, and religious divisions; and an inability or unwillingness to control the corrupt parts of the Iraqi government (e.g. Ministry of Interior). Most interviewees believed that even the current Iraqi government lacked sufficient legitimacy to prevent Iraq from descending into civil war, especially if the Coalition withdrew from Iraq in the next two to three years.
Andrew Garfield, a Senior Fellow at the FPRI, is a former European director of the Terrorism Research Center, deputy director of International Policy Institute (IPI) at King’s College London, and senior director of Influence and Insight for the Lincoln Group.
Mr. Garfield is also a former senior British military then civilian intelligence officer and former senior policy advisor at the UK Ministry of Defense.
So the issues surrounding legitimacy go far beyond the US decision to invade. They continue to arise. And denial of them even existing continues. And around and around we go.
