Predictable response

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

That doesn't explain Mexico, or Canada. And they are the 1rst and
2nd leading sources of oil imported into the country sandwiched between
them, so they'd be mighty tempting, yes?

Maybe ... their neighbor ... is not so bad?

I can't see the US wanting Mexico, and whether Canada get shafted
depends strongly on how desperate the US is for resources in the future
and how cooperative Canada is. I can certainly imagine trouble if Canada
signed an exclusive energy deal with China while US gastanks ran dry.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

The international community believes in a fair number of basic human
rights. If a country does not believe in them, are the not a "sovereign
nation" by your definition? What if they say they believe in them, but
don't follow through in practice? What if they practice some but not
others? Or if they apply these rights to some people, but not others?

Then they all basically elect each other to the UN Human Rights
Committee which sort of solves any issues that might arise in the
future (and gives a platform to point fingers at everyone else).

PS:

Which version of the "human rights" are "we" talking about? The
Islamic or the Western. There is a difference you know.

 

[John Woodgate]

In message <[email protected]>, dated Tue, 29 Aug
2006, Frithiof Andreas Jensen

Which version of the "human rights" are "we" talking about? The Islamic
or the Western. There is a difference you know.

The wrongly named 'unalienable' ones? Wrongly named because in practice
they are all too easily alienable.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

In message <[email protected]>, dated Tue, 29 Aug
2006, Frithiof Andreas Jensen


The wrongly named 'unalienable' ones? Wrongly named because in practice
they are all too easily alienable.

'Human Rights' are a social contract between those with concentrated
power and those with diffuse power in the context of a particular society.

 

[Charlie Edmondson]

I can't see the US wanting Mexico, and whether Canada get shafted
depends strongly on how desperate the US is for resources in the future
and how cooperative Canada is. I can certainly imagine trouble if Canada
signed an exclusive energy deal with China while US gastanks ran dry.

Actually, I always thought we should 'annex' Baja, and make it South
California, or something like that.

Charlie

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Actually, I always thought we should 'annex' Baja, and make it South
California, or something like that.

But minus the Mexicans (except servants).

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

If the US ever tries to invade Canada we'll just change all the signs to say
Welcome to Mexico. They'll never figure it out.

Who needs signs when you're using GPS?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Labels aren't important; antiwar.com just seems a bit lost. Sure,
war's nasty. But we're in one. Or two.

Yeah. At the behest of one lame-brained commander-in-chief, who just
decided it would be a good idea to make a war or two.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Silly drivel. What constitutes "nation" and "soverignty"? A chunk of
land ruled by a madman?

Pretty much, yeah.[1]

Where would _you_ draw the line?

Thanks,
Rich

[1] right now, the US seems to be pretty close - it's a chunk of land
ruled by a committee of madmen.

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Ah, well finally someone's willing to discuss the articles like a civil
human being.

Those are interesting questions. What is your view on what constitutes
a soverein nation? A particular form of government that you approve of
or as recognized by an international institution of member states such
as the UN, or some other definition?

As a minimum, the governmant has to be by popular consent. A group of
thugs can't reasonably speak for the population.[/QUOTE]

And, what should one do about a group of thugs who have guards around
their borcers, who say, "We're in charge by consent of our people" and
get a couple of citizens to say how much they love their leader, then
what? Diplomatic relations? Free trade?

I just now had a profound revelation.

Of all the attempts at "regime change", by whoever, the only one that has
had any positive effect has been the introduction of The Free Market.

Just look at the record!

When will people get it - government control is Bad. Free Will is Good.

That's why everyone should vote Libertarian - what the hell, how could he
be worse than the current pack of clowns? ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

What percentage of the population agreeing is "popular concent"? You'll
never get 100% agreement. You also need to define "concent" and what
evidence you will use. In several countries, the people currently in
power have less than 50% support from the people does this disqualify
them?

Usually, not until the next election. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

There's not a lot of point playing with definitions. The real question
is whether "the international community" believes in some basic human
rights, and then is willing to do something about it. So does
"disqualify" have teeth?

Well, this "basic human rights" stuff has two edges, you know. Don't
people (and maybe even nations) have the "basic human right" to not
be attacked by people who disagree with their lifestyle?

Or what exactly would "do something about it" mean in this context?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Actually, I always thought we should 'annex' Baja, and make it South
California, or something like that.

Better hurry. Mexico has pretty much done that all the way up the west
coast to Los Angeles, at least.

What really disgusts me is Mexican shows on taxpayer-paid PBS. Arrrgh!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Who needs signs when you're using GPS?

We've purchased large magnets from Acme.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

We've purchased large magnets from Acme.

Which Acme?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Which Acme?

"Proud supplier to Wiley Coyote"

 

[Ken Smith]

What percentage of the population agreeing is "popular concent"? You'll
never get 100% agreement. You also need to define "concent" and what
evidence you will use. In several countries, the people currently in
power have less than 50% support from the people does this disqualify
them?

There's not a lot of point playing with definitions. The real question
is whether "the international community" believes in some basic human
rights, and then is willing to do something about it. So does
"disqualify" have teeth?[/QUOTE]

Before we give the "disqualify" teeth, we'd better know what it means.

I think, the international community does agree to some basic human rights
already. Many of them are hypocrites about it when it comes to putting it
into practice. Some hold people for long periods of time without charge,
torture people and etc, but still maintain that they believe in human
rights.

A system for giving the international standards teeth would have to
include an international court system. There would have to be a method by
which the government of a nation would be found guilt of a crime and the
degree to which it is punished determined. You can remove the "minister
for shoving old ladies under busses" but not depose the whole crew or you
could oust the lot of them.

Once the punishment has been decided, a force strong enough to ensure that
it is carried out is needed. This basically means that the reformed UN
would need an army it can call on fairly quickly. We don't want 10 years
of arguing over what color tanks to use to get in the way.

 

[Ken Smith]

Which version of the "human rights" are "we" talking about? The
Islamic or the Western. There is a difference you know.

It isn't just Islamic vs Western. Communisim, socialism, capitalism and
anarchy are all western ideas that carry different versions of what human
rights are.

 

[Ken Smith]

'Human Rights' are a social contract between those with concentrated
power and those with diffuse power in the context of a particular society.

I disagree. "Human rights" are the rights you have just because you are
human. "The social contract" is an agreement between the the people and
the government where the people choose not to exercise some of their
rights individually but rather collectively. Those rights are not given
up. They are still the rights of the individuals.

 

[Ken Smith]

That doesn't explain Mexico, or Canada. And they are the 1rst and
2nd leading sources of oil imported into the country sandwiched between
them, so they'd be mighty tempting, yes?

The national sport of the US is baseball where people "run home".

The national sport of Canada is hockey where anyone with more than 3 teeth
is a newcomer.

The national sport of Mexico is their version of the rodeo where they jump
on large unfriendly animals.


The national animal of the US is the Bald Eagle which is still endangered.

The national animal of the Canada is the beaver which eats trees for a
living.

The national animal of Mexico is the chiwawa, a small dog like animal that
can survive on Taco Bell food.


I don't fancy the US attacking either of those.