Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change In Egypt
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 61 of 96 (603481)
02-04-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
02-04-2011 3:06 PM


Re:
Jar writes:
but outside intervention into a countries government to interfere with elections is NOT one of the options.
What about the gross violations of human rights portion of the Egypt scenerio (torture, police/military firing into protesters, etc.), as in the atrocities that happened in Rwanda? Do you not feel we have a moral imperative to act?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 02-04-2011 3:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 02-04-2011 5:13 PM dronestar has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 62 of 96 (603483)
02-04-2011 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Phat
02-04-2011 3:01 PM


How would Egypt putting in place a true democracy, on it's own, come at your expense?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Phat, posted 02-04-2011 3:01 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 63 of 96 (603484)
02-04-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phat
02-04-2011 2:58 PM


Re: Other Way Around
And this has what, exactly, to do with the people of Egypt trying to get a true democracy in place? Your beef should be with China and India....

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 02-04-2011 2:58 PM Phat has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 96 (603488)
02-04-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by hooah212002
02-04-2011 11:41 AM


We have to protect our allies...
Protect them from....what exactly?
Our non-allies. Or whatever we've agreed to.
Its just plain stupid to say that its none of our business.
We couldn't POSSIBLY allow another nations people to protest to get what they want. No no no...that would be too democratic of them. I sure hope some of our allies come to OUR governments aid if WE ever revolt....
It depends on how its gonna affect us. It wouldn't be a good idea for the USA to let a worse group run the country, or one that didn't want to be our ally anymore.
Its an important part of the world and it'd be a poor choice for us to neglect it.
Honestly though, I don't think its going to be possible for us to see eye-to-eye on this when I see the following comments from you in other posts (which I find to be incredibly naive and ignorant):
the only thing outsiders should be concerned with is what is good for the Egyptian people, not OUR government.
So you are all for shaping other people to suit YOUR interests? That's ok with you? How about what they want? How about what is best for the people of THAT country?
The difference is: I am putting the interest of my human brethren ahead of my government or my country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by hooah212002, posted 02-04-2011 11:41 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2011 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 68 by hooah212002, posted 02-04-2011 4:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 65 of 96 (603490)
02-04-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2011 3:39 PM


CS writes:
I don't think its going to be possible for us to see eye-to-eye on this when I see the following comments from you in other posts (which I find to be incredibly naive and ignorant)
This coming from the same person who wrote:
CS writes:
Our non-allies. Or whatever we've agreed to.
It doesn't sound like you know exactly what's going on either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2011 3:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2011 3:59 PM dronestar has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 96 (603492)
02-04-2011 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by dronestar
02-04-2011 3:55 PM


CS writes:
Our non-allies. Or whatever we've agreed to.
It doesn't sound like you know exactly what's going on either.
How so?
Know it was a general statement of what we protect our allies from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2011 3:55 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by hooah212002, posted 02-04-2011 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 67 of 96 (603493)
02-04-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by dronestar
02-04-2011 1:27 PM


dronestar writes:
Is it wrong for the police/social-workers to meddle in the internal affairs of a family: parent's abuse of their children, wife-beating?
That's a very different question, and a difficult one.
dronestar writes:
Do we not share a kinship with all the people of the world, regardless of boundaries?
We share a kinship with cattle, but I still eat beef.
The difference is that for members of our own society, there are important shared social responsibilities.
Sure, there are also shared responsibilities with people of other nations, such as the responsibility for us to not damage the global climate that they depend on. But it is not up to us to choose their government.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2011 1:27 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2011 4:13 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 68 of 96 (603494)
02-04-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2011 3:39 PM


Our non-allies. Or whatever we've agreed to.
So we have to protect the Egyptian protesters from our non-allies, when they are protesting for a better standard of living? Good call! Let's invade 'em right now and bomb the piss out of those miserable bastards, show 'em who's boss! USA USA USA!!!
It depends on how its gonna affect us. It wouldn't be a good idea for the USA to let a worse group run the country, or one that didn't want to be our ally anymore.
As we have seen over the past 30 years, it would appear that a human rights violoating dictator IS, in your opinion, the best choice for the people of Egypt?
Its an important part of the world and it'd be a poor choice for us to neglect it.
Did I say we neglect it? We sure haven't been neglecting it thus far with billions of dollars in "aid" going to Mubarak and his henchmen..... I'm just saying this particular event should be of no concern to our government.
Honestly though, I don't think its going to be possible for us to see eye-to-eye on this when I see the following comments from you in other posts (which I find to be incredibly naive and ignorant):
That's cool. I'm not here to even try and agree with anyone, so I don't really care if we see eye to eye or fist to eye: it's all the same to me.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2011 3:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2011 5:02 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 69 of 96 (603495)
02-04-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2011 3:59 PM


Know it was a general statement of what we protect our allies from.
Ahh, so the Egyptian people aren't our allies, only their government. No wonder the rest of the world hates our guts.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2011 3:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 70 of 96 (603497)
02-04-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by nwr
02-04-2011 4:00 PM


Drone writes:
Is it wrong for the police/social-workers to meddle in the internal affairs of a family: parent's abuse of their children, wife-beating?
NWR writes:
That's a very different question, and a difficult one.
Wow.
And yikes. With that single reply, it kinda rendered my second question moot.
Edited by dronester, : wrong attribution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by nwr, posted 02-04-2011 4:00 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 96 (603502)
02-04-2011 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by hooah212002
02-04-2011 4:03 PM


So we have to protect the Egyptian protesters from our non-allies, when they are protesting for a better standard of living? Good call! Let's invade 'em right now and bomb the piss out of those miserable bastards, show 'em who's boss! USA USA USA!!!
Not even close.
Our main ally over there is Israel. They have a peace treaty with Egypt. The other big countries are thier enemies.
Shit's going down in Egypt, and that's going to affect Israel, our ally.
We have to protect our allies. Ergo, it is our business.
As we have seen over the past 30 years, it would appear that a human rights violoating dictator IS, in your opinion, the best choice for the people of Egypt?
I guess you don't even need me here if you're going to just tell me what my opinions are.
Once again though, you are wrong. IMHO, its time for Mubarak to leave.
Did I say we neglect it? We sure haven't been neglecting it thus far with billions of dollars in "aid" going to Mubarak and his henchmen..... I'm just saying this particular event should be of no concern to our government.
You said that its none of our fucking business. Excuse me for feeling like you meant neglect.
But you're still wrong. This particular event *is* of our concern because its going to affect our ally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by hooah212002, posted 02-04-2011 4:03 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 72 of 96 (603505)
02-04-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by dronestar
02-04-2011 3:15 PM


Re:
dronester writes:
Jar writes:
but outside intervention into a countries government to interfere with elections is NOT one of the options.
What about the gross violations of human rights portion of the Egypt scenerio (torture, police/military firing into protesters, etc.), as in the atrocities that happened in Rwanda? Do you not feel we have a moral imperative to act?
That depends on what you mean by act.
We have a moral imperative to speak out, complain, request legal action be taken.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2011 3:15 PM dronestar has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 73 of 96 (603507)
02-04-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
02-04-2011 3:09 PM


Only in limited ways, with the sanction of the Security Council
Umm, the UN Security Council?
and with the permission of the government(s) of the area(s) involved.
To authorize military action they do not need the governments of the area's permission.
Chapter 7 of the UN Charter secures them that right.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 02-04-2011 3:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 02-04-2011 5:32 PM onifre has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 74 of 96 (603512)
02-04-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by onifre
02-04-2011 5:18 PM


onifre writes:
jar writes:
Only in limited ways, with the sanction of the Security Council
Umm, the UN Security Council?
Yes, the UN Security Council.
onifre writes:
jar writes:
and with the permission of the government(s) of the area(s) involved.
To authorize military action they do not need the governments of the area's permission.
Chapter 7 of the UN Charter secures them that right.
- Oni
To send in peace keepers or to separate parties it is usually required. And even in cases of humanitarian aid the reality is that the UN usually removes their peacekeepers when requested.
If you read all of Chapter 7 of that Charter, it involves actions to maintain international peace.
quote:
"A Security Council Resolution is considered to be 'a Chapter VII resolution' if it makes an explicit determination that the situation under consideration constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and/or explicitly or implicitly states that the Council is acting under Chapter VII in the adoption of some or all operative paragraphs."
Actions internal to a Nation State such as the ones described so far involving Egypt do not appear to be subject to Chapter VII conditions; they do not pose a threat to International Peace, are not involving a threat to any other Nation and are not what would be called "Crimes against the Peace".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 5:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by onifre, posted 02-04-2011 6:00 PM jar has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 75 of 96 (603516)
02-04-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
02-04-2011 5:32 PM


To send in peace keepers or to separate parties it is usually required. And even in cases of humanitarian aid the reality is that the UN usually removes their peacekeepers when requested.
True. But not when they send in military action, when it is backed by the council. Or in the case of the US, without the councils backing.
Actions internal to a Nation State such as the ones described so far involving Egypt do not appear to be subject to Chapter VII conditions; they do not pose a threat to International Peace, are not involving a threat to any other Nation and are not what would be called "Crimes against the Peace".
Not yet at least.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 02-04-2011 5:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 02-04-2011 8:28 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024