From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search
  • Nations should mind their own business except where gross environmental or human rights violation is involved.
  • International Law will be employed to resolve international disputes.
  • We are all becoming citizens of the world, one big family.

AnewGo wishes to pursue criminal charges against the Heads of State of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia.

 'No such decision has been made.  What is the purpose being sought here?  It this the most effective way to achieve it?'

true. we are debating it.

If the United States of America continues to refuse to sign to the International Criminal Court, AnewGo will interpet that as an admission of guilt, and use it as a point of proceeding with the case.

It is the contention of AnewGo that these Heads of State conspired under International Law to create a situation of WarLaw which they agreed to adhere to.

 'So what's new?  How do we change it?'

WarLaw situation has be created purely out of an attitude of belligerence.

 'What about fear?'

Exactly what is the USA afraid of?

'That the world will stand by and do nothing to bullies like Saddam.'

The US seems to have taken on the role of a "bully" to do that.

And exactly who was he "bullying" apart from the usual tactics employed by all dictators to remain in power?

 'What about the oil?'

Is that what the USA wants?

'Saddam provides the moral justification, Oil provides the economic justification.'

Very well put. Oil owned by a morally degraded individual is there for the taking.

That is the motivation.

If the United States of America declares a military victory. Iraq as a legal entity ceases to exist at that point, making the USA the only nation not signing the International Criminal Court.

 'How do we get the US it sign?  It would be a good thing.'

It is a contention of AnewGo that to create a situation of WarLaw is a direct attack on International Law.

 'Okay, we don't approve of war.  War is not civil.'

Using the mask of WarLaw to engage in mass criminal acts.

 'The US position is that International Law has failed to deal with the Butcher of Baghdad so it has not choice.'_

Why the Butcher of Bagdad, and not the Butcher of Zimbabwe? or many other Butchers to choose from? There is choice in the matter.

'US support of Saddam and his breaking of agreements, mutual defence treaties in the neiborhood, on top of his monsterous acts involves the US.'

So this is how the US has chosen. A choice has been made. More to do with how bothersome he had become, rather than his terrible human rights record.

'But International law can't work without the US. How do we change that?'

There have been rogue states before.

I share your anger that civilization would still make war without universal world mandate. How can we make this the last gasp of 20th century military reasoning? Mirroring the confrontation tactics of Bush is not likely to win us anything. We need a world police that works and understanding, not conflict to win america to world government.

Humanity is becoming and international community. People of every nationality are scattered all over the world. We are in a awkward phase of growing from a national world to an international one where diversity will be cherished, protection will be centralized and control decentralized down to SovereignIndividuals.

I'm not sure if this is mirroring anything, I'm asserting the rule of Law. If I can get agreement from all other Nations of Earth, except the defendants of course, the case will proceed.

If these Heads of state have not conspired to create a state of WarLaw to destroy the Legal and Administrative structure of Iraq, then they have nothing to fear about this case proceeding.

'What a simple, narrowminded, uneducated, childish point of view.' from the 20th century emperialist point of view it may seem to be. Should we succeed in making WarLaw seen for the abortion of law that it embodies, this will be the new human view in a peaceful world.

This is interesting. This is suggesting an attack on the Geneva Convention. I had not considered this before, this is a bigger fish to fry, than what is being dicussed here.


 The Geneva Convention is part of the codification of War. Why would we codify War? To curb its damage, of course. This is what all the codification is about, making War less costly in lives and property damage. Which allows us to wage War more often. If you want to abolish War, to make it the choice that noone would ever make, you need to remove all codification from it. Codifying War effectively legitimizes it, as a choice. Codes of War always come about as a means to allow societies to wage War without risking utter destruction. Without the risk of destruction as a society, there is no final reason not to go to War.
 You must wear a uniform while engaging in warfare activities (especially while fighting). Why? So that the other side fighting knows to shoot you, and not every civilian in sight. Why is that important? Because a dead peasant/worker cannot work and pay war repariations, nor contribute to the survival of his or her people/society.
 You will never get the GenevaConvention repelled, so long as nations wish to be able to wage a civilized War. And so long as people think they can keep War civilized, it will always be viewed as a legitimate response to a political (difference of opinion) or social (difference of behavioral code) issue. ---StarPilot

Well we can start we don't have to recognise this barbaric law. see GenevaConventionProblem

First off, AnewGo has not determined anything. Where is the AnewGoResolution for determining if Bush, Blair, and others are WarCriminals? Or CriminalsAgainstAllHumanity?

Second off, [[ AnewGoCitizen|War]] is being practiced right now, by others then just the Coalition. France is busy playing war in Africa. Russia is playing war in Checknya. Isreal and the Palenstines are at definately at war. China will be at war with Tiawan within our generation. Where's the condemnation and cry for all those countries and leaders blood? Nowhere. Either do a more thorough investigation of your issue (AnewGoResolutionNoWarWithoutMajorityWorldConsensus) or please stop being so politically narrowband. It show an appalling similarity to RandomNess's political narrowband, which offended at least 20% of the [[AnewGoCitizenry |]].

 'The point of AnewGo is to through out all that has gone before and design government as it should be.  It you are happy with a world of war.  Then you probably have no interest in AnewGo'.
 I am not happy with a world of War. I simply understand that we will not eliminate War by saying 'Go away. We are civilized folk, and noone would ever act that way again, henceforth===='. You can only make War a non-choice, by making it's consequences be so horrendous, that noone, not even the insane, would choose it. The state of the HumanAnimal is such that there will always be someone willing to risk War to get what they want. ---StarPilot

Third, courts are not about justice. They are about presentation and procedures. No justice has ever been meted out in a court of Man, although there have been a few rare instances that became close.

 'Courts are the best we have, they have served to defend our rights and out constitution.  Indeed they have been far from perfect.  That is why we are redefining court in AnewGoCourt, and improve court objectivity and justice.'
 Courts do not defend our rights and our constitution. Courts render an opinion on how to resolve a dispute between two viewpoints. Those viewpoints can both be private (civil case, citizen versus citizen), or of the collective (criminal case, citizen versus state). It is the PoliceForce and the Administration (local, state, federal), that defend your rights and constitution. They enforce the consensus. The court is merely trying to act as a tool to clarify what the consensus is. This is where a trial by jury of your peers originates. The jury is meant to be a microcosm of the social collective. The judge is merely an agent overseeing the procedings, making sure that the socially approved procedure is followed. That is needed to make sure that society will be satisfied that its procedures to determine the correct viewpoint and resolution has been followed correctly. But a court never defends your rights. It merely clarifies what is the collective's position on what your rights are, and what the resolution should be. Others make it happen, if they agree with it. If they do not, then it will not be enforced. This is the automatic check on a court. It does not enforce its own decisions. Agents of the collective do. ---StarPilot
 'You missed something in political science Star, the courts were created to uphold the constitution and indeed limit the power of congress and police according to the constitutionality of their laws and actions.  To me this is most precious to our system.  I am appauled as how mush of the vision of our forfathers has been lost.'
Not true. The courts rulings have to be enforced. Did you know that the Supreme Court has found several actions against the Executive Branch has taken to be illegal and unconstitutional? Many contracts with the various Native Americans, for instance, have been violated. The Native Americans have taken the US Government to court over many contractual failures, and many Executive Orders. And the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor, many times (including in the recent past). However, as it is the Executive Branch of our government that is charged with enforcing the laws and rulings of our nation, the Executive Branch just ignored the ruling. Balance of power, ConsensusByDefault... And that is the precise balance of power of fore-fathers envisioned. If the people disagreed with the Executive Branch's actions, we'd vote them out of office, or have our Legislative Branch impeach them. Neither happened. ---StarPilot

Fourth, those countries named have checks on their political leaders. If they felt that the leader was doing ill for the country, they could remove them. I haven't heard even a rumble of such for the American one. And only small ones for the others. What does this tell us? This tells us that the CommonConsensus is that the citizenry of those nations support their leader. We don't have secret police forces that sweep by and make the common citizen disappear. Not yet, thank the Creator==== Oops. Sorry, that's a different rant for a different day. ;-) ====

 'When one country invades another it is a different ball game.'
 Not in the sense that all the world is one collective. It is still a dispute between two smaller viewpoints in the total collective. See War for both sides of this particular matter. ---StarPilot
  'So it is okay for New Jersey to invade New York?  I think not.  Just as we have made that likely hood almost zero, someday the international community will do the same between nations.'

This is one of the things that color my view to not join AnewGo. It's not being shown as a censensus here. It's shown at being a polical plank to be used to beat a minority view point over a larger one. You know, War. Should we prosecute you as a WarCriminal then? One bringing War onto our fellow brother and sisters? ---StarPilot

'Punishment is not the aim of AnewGo law, change is.'
Then AnewGoLaw is not Law. See below. ---StarPilot
 'Law prescribes behavior that is to be repressed or elicited.  If punishment works best, then punishement should be used maybe.  But we know punishment is not the best way to control behaviour of HumanAnimals, so then how is punishment necesarily the aim of Law?  It may be in old law, but new law is what we make it.'

Yes there are other cases. Do you dispute the fact of? A pity you set such low standards.

-- Tis not I to be pitied. AnewGo is about consensus. You have no consensus. You have only your own one viewpoint. Take a poll. Start a resolution. See how much support of your fellows you have. See if the AnewGoWorldOpinion supports yours. Otherwise, you are doing the same thing you accuse Bush and the gang of doing. Whatever the hell they want without consideration for their fellow man, and with no thought to the consequences for other. That's a WarCriminal, the HumanAnimal, TwoYearsOld.

This is the debate. Interesting that I am debating policy with a non-citizen, show me another state that will allow that. ( ToDo : A point in time may be reached where this will no longer allowed. ) Exactly how is the project the same as the actions of the heads of state? I am not avocating violence, only the rule of Law.

 Rule of law is based on violence. ---StarPilot
 %%%Not in AnewGo -- JimScarver
 'The views of StarPilot are very close to that of mainstream america.  We can't just turn it off and say "go away".  It is the reality we must deal with if we hope to change the world.'

Yes I think that is true.

Well, America for one. We will debate anything we want with whoever we want whenever we want. We like to talk.

 'True. But do non-citizens have the right to infulence the US foreign policy or debate it in Congress? Are there any US congresspersons who are not US citizens?'
 Non-citizens influence US Foreign policy all the time. They often debate it with the president, as well as with Congress. One doesn't have to be a citizen to affect state policy or direction. ---StarPilot
 'I suppose The US Congress does recognise other States points of view, as articulated by their Heads of State and Ministers, and generate a response. That could be considered a slow debate. But in this case it is like a random non-US citizen being given the privledge to debate in Congress itself||'

Additionally, you have to be willing to always debate the matter with outsiders. There are many reasons for this, but just a few of them are: You want to look like you are open to all (you are a voluntary participatory group, meant for all); You don't want to send the message to your members that you are close minded; ideas come from where they come from. It doesn't matter the source, only the idea.

 'true, and we are doing that.'

Second, AnewGo constitution claims anyone that has access to a computer is a citizen.

Clarification: Anyone with computer access has the right to choose to become a citizen and vote in elections and at this time to particpate in AnewGoCongress. This means they have to think and choose, it is not automatic.

Perhaps you should revise that? There isn't a point to sign up when I'm a digital citizen of the world. It's an opt-out deal in concept, not an opt-in one. I'm surprised you hadn't figured that out.

Third, you shouldn't get so angry when someone pisses on your single person parade. If you truly mean to bring in the digital citizens throughout the world, I'm going to be the most polite, most reasonable person by comparison. If you cannot handle 'me', you had best go retire to a monastery for the rest of your life, as you are unsuited to deal with the bored, troublesome masses just waiting to pass some piss along.

Fourth, it is War, or the threat of it, that keeps everyone trying to cooperate. It is the threat of War that gives power to the courts. That a community will go to War on you if you do not abide by it.

 'See NewLaw for an arguement against this view.'
 Incorrect. See [[ AnewGoCitizen]] are willing to go to War. There is a clear consensus that the [[AnewGoCitizenry |]] to defend themselves, their family, and their property. This is basic to the world. If you won't defend yourself, then you become a target for bullies.
 'We are even redefining revolution to avoid leathal forse whenever possible.  All conflict is not War, war is killing people.'
 We have peace and trade between nations because if one nation simply tried to take what the other nation had that they wanted, the invaded/attacked nation would defend itself, and we would have War. What happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait, to seize its oil fields (Some of which where indeed stealing via slant drilling into Iraqi space/reserves)? Kuwait resisted, and its fellow nations of shared interest came to its aid. There was War.
 You and I may choose to peacefully co-exist and even possibly exchange material goods (trade). However, not everyone is willing to take the long way, to work hard, when they can simply take it from someone else. It is this lowest common denominator of HumanAnimal that causes the peaceful workers to band together. This allows the peaceful ones to be able to keep those that would otherwise not be peaceful, to conform. Via the threat of violence.
 Violence, or its threat, is what keeps those more in tune with their omnivour nature (looking for a fast and easy meal wherever it is found), in line. Since it's a lot of bother for little reward to just take from the collaborating people, those individuals cooperate with the Collective. We make it easier to reach a suitable pay off for them by cooperating with, rather then by preying on, the members of the Collective.
 It all hinges on violence. On being willing to deal it out. Raising the bar of how much trouble is it to take from members of the Collective.
 Fear is the basis of all human society. Fear is the basis of the natural awareness we possess as HumanAnimals. Fear of consequences. All our society is based on this behavioural fact. And without violence (the base form of retaliation), there is no fear of consequences.
 Law is the codification of retaliation. If you do this, this violence will be meted to you. Steal from your fellow man, and your hand will be cut off. Put out another man's eye, and one of your eye's will be blinded. Take another man's wife, and your genitiali will be removed. One can make the case that we have advanced beyond this, but that is not true. We've simply decided that it is acceptable to accept Blood Money in place of committing physical violence as an act or retaliation upon you. From Blood Money, descends our system of fines for parking in a no parking zone. Or building without a permit. Or driving without a license. Or robbing your fellow man. We've done away with many forms of physical retaliation, as the governing organizations we've constructed prefers to have money over blood. It's very difficult to spend blood, but very easy to spend money. This has the added benefit of returning the offender back to society, so that the offender may repeat his offense, and once again pay fines. Crime is big business for our governments. And the offender cooperates. Why? Because to not do so, risks greater retaliation upon that person. Violence is always the final retaliaion risked.
 When a police officer signals you to pull over, you do. Why? Because to not cooperate will result in escalating retaliations. From fines, to beatings and imprisonment, and ultimately, being killed. Violence. It's the keystone. We cooperate to avoid violence at the hands of our fellow HumanAnimal.
 The Internet has provided us with a medium where the risks of retaliation is reduced. More people are assholes in it, because they can be. The very empowerment of the medium is based on the fact that the risk of violence is reduced. A person's change in his extelligence versus his or her in person personality is usually directly related to how much he curbs his own behaviour (speech) out of his own fear of violence. It is only secondarily modified by the fact that most forms of communication in this medium are solileques (solitary discourses). However, even if you disallow AnewGo from claiming land, there will still be physical links to the real world, and therefore, the real world and it's violence can still be retailiated upon people. You might not be afraid to tell me off (because there is almost no chance we can 'step outside' for us to tangle (ie for me to retaliate violence upon you)), but the threat that some retaliation can and will be visited upon you for breaking a larger group's code (such as trading warez or whatever), can and does exists. And for that matter, while it is more unlikely that personal retaliation may occur, the chance isn't completely elimated. A determined individual can still track you down, and retaliate upon you in person. Hence, we are still someone cooperative and behave within certain boundaries. Fear of violence, again, is at the base. Lowest Common Denominator.
 No amount of announcements or statements will change this. It is part of the HumanAnimal. It is part of group dynamics. Just as increasing the group lowers its intelligence, adding to the group lowers its morality and ideals. Being digital will not change that, as it is not changing the core of the HumanAnimal. ---StarPilot

Additionally, you have to be willing to deal out violence, if you want others to stop committing violence. You have to be willing to fight the bullies if you want the bullies to back off. And some bullies do not believe you will fight until serious blood is shed. If you are not willing to commit acts of violence, you aren't worth your spot in a world where someone else is. We can agree to let the more action oriented types play protector and defender, but then you empower them to speak for you to others. You are staying in the interior of the herd, behind them. They become your representatitves to the world.

 'See NewLaw for an argument against this view.'
 Very wrong. The State Of Humanity is the HumanCollaborationContract... That's the lowest common denominator. It is the threat of retaliated violence that keeps people of that viewpoint from taking what the want from who they want, whenever they want. Until, that is, they think they will get away with it. This is why Jim advocates a PoliceForce that is authorized to deal out violence. You cannot say that it is self defense for the PoliceForce. They are interfering with a sub-culture within the greater collective, active all. They are trying to impress a particular point of view upon an opposing view. See War. If you are not willing to commit violence, then you be easy pickings for the bullies. Therefore, you are willing to commit violence, as an individual, a society/collective, and a nation. Therefore, it is only the threshold for when you commit violence that is in question. If that is a consensus threshold, then do not be surprised if your society chooses to commit violence at a lesser threshold then your own tastes. And this has a good chance of occuring. Look at all those against the War. Some of that is certainly because their threshold for commiting violence has not been reached. ---StarPilot

This site is about ConsensusByDefault. What that 'really' means is, you are welcome to your personal delusions. If you post them here, you can presume that the rest of humanity doesn't disagree with your delusions strong enough to say so, unless someone says so. Or: Only people that care enough to post, will, and most of the time, that will be to counter what you posts. The net effect of all this is, you only have a consensus so long as you keep your opinion to yourself. Just like you only have a mandate from humanity as long as you don't tell anyone else.

 Lets see how far the ConsensusByDefault model can go. So far we have done some constructive   work.

You want to ignore me, fine. But doing so will send some negative messages to your fellow participants, as well as any new audiences that come upon this.

You are giving me the impression that you are about 13 years old. Not capable of handling discussions, debates, or anything else that doesn't precisely align with your personal view. That isn't going to be helpful to your cause, and neither will you. You might want to consider handing over your cause to Jim, and just bailing on it, at least for a while. That would be very helpful to your cause. Or at least, study and immulate him. He handles disagreement, debates, and discussions much better, and even more positively then you, when he is spitting mad.

 I am a different person and I may be 13 years old.

Jim, I am all for creating a new society. But do you think that is really needed? Or merely a refinement? Our world is full of people who range from living TheGoodLife to trying to find enough to eat today. That makes for a wide range of behaviors. When you are living TheGoodLife, you tend to be kinder, and have more patience for everything. When you are fighting to live, everything is always extreme, Black Or White, UsAndThem. Or are we back to bringing the American life to every single person on the planet?

 'I deeply believe that change is necessary.  Some of the problems that need to be addressed are outlined in the DeclarationOfInterdependence.  2 million years of human history is largely lost and our future is not certain.  I would appose any constitutional convention in america as I fear we would lose much of the wisdom of our founding fathers.  Evolution is better than revolution.  But when systems get too complex, they break down.  When they break down, we will return to a prehistory existence unless we have something to replace it with.  AnewGo is an opportunity to get back to basics and re-engineer a society from the ground up.  Chances are it will fail, but it is worth trying, and trying again.' --JimScarver

And doesn't NetworkTheory and SmallWorlds tell us that we are creating a new society, every day? Our participation affects each other, and all others, yes? So we are already doing so, aren't we? ---StarPilot

 'Evolution might work without the fall of our civilization.  The US is one of the oldest governments in existance, and like all former civilizations we believe it will last forever.  History suggests this will not be the case.  We can only build on what IS by constant compromise.  Eventually we will have comprosised all that is important.  Our only hope of avoiding the repetition of history is to redefine and refactor our civilization before the fall.   AnewGo is an attempt to do so.  It may take many attempt before we either succeed or fall.' --JimScarver
 Interesting questions, though completely off topic.
 I have not seen anything disputing the case in question so far.
'International law will be a joke as long as the US does not stand behind it.  The goal is that the US support rather than shun International Law.  Indighting the US in a law they don'r subscibe to is counterproductive to that effort.'

Interesting, but lets not confuse the United states of America, and the present administration and the the present Head of state, I think we are talking about a smaller group of people now. These are the people that the world may have issue with. Let us see what happens, this all may take place when the said Heads of State are no-longer in those positions. This starts to have a different complexion then. Also the case has many obsticles in it's path true without all other nations backing it could become a futile exercise, but that is yet to be determined.

It's value may become symbolic, at least one nation tried something.

It is becoming our first major dilemma, already I can see a choice between proceeding on this crusade or opting for a more cautious approach of the GenevaConventionProblem solution.

I don't know if I'd say it is a real dilema. So far, you have 2 citizens of AnewGo that might support this call? Start a resolution in AnewGoCongress, and see who signs up for it. And who opposes it.

Furthermore, I propose a change to AnewGoInternationPolicy:

'All nations should mind all other nations business.'


We get into lots of messes because we are not being big enough nosy bodies. If we don't want the stuff they are doing in their 'backyard' affecting us, we need to take interest in what they do, and provide appropriate feedback. Work with citizens of that nation, to help bring about a policy or public opinion more in line with AnewGoCitizenry preferences.

I don't have a problem with increased communication, but the first statement in this policy discussion has been misinterpeted "Nations should mind their own business..." I felt was meant to be interpeted to mean nations should not engage in military action to effect outcomes in other nations. It is very unclear i'll give you that.

Given that i think your statement is very much in line with present US policy, but not AnewGo. Also i think it is too pedantic to push all discussion of many complex issues to one page. This is AnewGoInternationalPolicy and the debate is taking place here.

I propose that the Indonesian legal community be contacted and invited to the debate, as it is in agreement with their stated national policy. So far the only dissent on this issue has been recorded from an AnewGoResident. Therefore i conclude the policy still stands.

I suggest a time limit of 12 years, if no evidence of Iraq's WMD is produced, the case definately will proceed, by that time many other nations will be part of the procescution.


Ah. Back to this. Well, first, let's quantify what you consider evidence. After all, if we do not do this, how will we know if the conditions ("evidence") have been met? Lots of talk now about evidence that has been found, has not, etc etc etc.

Second, remember, by your own actions on matters, you have given equal weight to AnewGoResidents as AnewGoCitizens. If we ever get around to making a less political branded declaration of AnewGo, and I might sign up on the matter. ;-)

  • Interesting you should mention the matter. I would say your votes could be contested easily in AnewGoCourt should someone decide to contest them, as they were cast by a masked identity who is self declared as not a citizen. --PhillipBannigan
Oh yeah, Phillip. Lets go down that path. I am no more masked then JimScarver or KenSchry or you yourself. For that matter, why don't you prove who you really are? Let's see your identification. Tax and insurance forms, drivers license numbers, birth certificate. Of course, those can be faked, and rather easily these days. So bring some real world references in the form of other humans who will vouch safe you. We will eventually have to establish a chain of trust, of people that we know that know others who know you (and me on the other end). And even then, people can be fooled. So lets see your best, most trustworthy proof you really are who you say you are. It goes both way. Noone here knows either of us in a personal, real world sense, do they? We are operating on the principle of trust. We trust each other to represent themselves honestly. But lets make it a requirement for ANYONE to participate in AnewGo. You will turn away most of those who might otherwise participate. And you must do it across the board, or it will look suspiscious. Like you are trying to censure someone you do not like.
Second, I participate. I am the NO vote to your current constitution and desired position of AnewGo as a spanking stick to the Coalition. I am the one pointing out the logical inconsistancies. Sometimes, it may be embarassing to an individual. Sometimes it is merely because people go with what is, or what they know. Sometimes, I'm the one mistaken. It happens.
I am the one that is looking at this as a real expression, and a real experiment, in perhaps how to improve matters. How are you looking at this? Your personal plaything? A political protest? Why do you react so strongly like I'm threatening to burn all your Christmas presents? ---StarPilot

Third, in 12 years, the world will not care one whit if there was or wasn't WMD in Iraq. Already, Iraqi who still hate Bush are thankful for the regime change. Already, more Iraqi are alive today then would be alive if the entire IraqiWar had not happened. So I find this path of trying to take a morally superior attitude (versus the Coalition in bringing down the Iraqi Regime through the use of force) to be on very shaky grounds. The results have been beneficial for all humanity, especially the various Iraqi peoples. Any arguments against that are arguments against actively helping your fellow man to be able to have the opportunity to have a chance at living TheGoodLife, something all AnewGoCitizens are suppose to support, and have endorsed, by signing up as members of AnewGo. ---StarPilot

It is interesting that in your argument truth is such an expendable product. I find your appeal to amniesa and the greatest good for the ends justify the means outright scary. It is indeed sobering if you represent a sizable proportion of the attitudes of the most military powerful nation on earth. Why should we trust you at all. You do not represent anything but your own self interest. It might be interesting to review:

I find it interesting that you seem to be so ignorant of world politics. Are you a teenager? Just haven't paid a lot of attention to history and current events? Your attitude seems full of naivity and narrow-mindedness is truly remarkable in someone that is out to better the world. Why was WWII? National self interest. Germany and England had an agreement in World War I||WWI fought? [[World War II|]]. It let Germany annex a good bit of land and treat those on it however they wanted. It wasn't until England became convinced that Germany was going to become a real threat to their sea power that they decided to 'honor' their agreements with the european nations and come to their aid. You really need to study history. No 'nation' ever commits an alturistic act. It is always for its self interest.
Examine... what was the 100 Years War over? The American-English War of 1812? The Spanish-American War? Right now, there are over a dozen wars going on in Africa. I don't hear you complaining about the fact that one tribe or people or nation is trying to subjegate or even exterminate another nation. You are focused on one minor, recent event in the history of nations. And you have yet to give a logical reason other then "I don't like it." I don't hear you protesting the destruction of the Maori or the Aboriginals of your own locality. I do not hear you protesting the EU's continued support of Hamas by the explicit payment of money to the legal side of the Hamas organization. That's direct support of terrorism, the direct support of killing Isreali people. What is the only thing you complain about? Someone pointing out logical inconsistancies in your initiated project, and the Coalition invading Iraq. Very narrow, self interest focus there. So, its okay for you to be self-interested (which you equated as evil and corrupt), but it isn't okay for that same trait to be present in a collection of people? But you aren't protesting your own governments portion and support in these acts (it was an active boots on soil member), so you don't mind YOUR country invading Iraq, just Bush's and Blair's? Please get some consistancy in this. Something cannot be alright for you to do, but not others. Remember, you cannot do much about my nation's leader, other then convince me to not vote for him when it comes time for re-election, but you can have a stronger effect on your own leadership. I hope if this matter really is such a craw in your throat, you are doing so locally, rather then just whining about Bush and Blair here. You realize that, right? ---StarPilot

I am not happy with the behaviour of Australia either, but you are right my position is idealist, I understnad what you say is true, there have been many bad acts in the past and they will probably continue. It is a sad and very deep malaise if we cannot aspire to something better. Belief in International Law has been delt a savage blow. ---PhillipBannigan

U.S. War Crimes Ambassador Reviews Saddam Hussein's Criminality

The criminality of it is not in doubt.

I don't see how another War Lord would not be able to grow out of the presnt situation, therefore achieving nothing but a mess. I hope they don't.

If we wish to play a numbers game the efforts of the US led coalitions are approaching quite large figures, as yet undefined. I make no distinction between military and civilian. It is all death. It is all criminality.

Oh yeah. Play a numbers game==== Make broad accusations and no distinctions. Paint with a very broad brush. Remember though, your nation is an 'active' participant in the Coalition. Your lawful behavior does nothing but support your nation's participation. And that supports everything that has transpired there, is transpiring, and will transpire, until no member of the Coalition is present in Iraq. ====
You really fired up about it, go catch a flight to Iraq, right now, and go fix it. Seriously, stop whining here about it, and go and be an active participant in making it better. If you cannot afford to travel, we can take up a collection, or find activist organizations that would help you get there. It's just US $299 to fly from the States to Baghdad, right now, so it shouldn't be too costly to get transportation there.
I believe Iraq has a real chance of establishing something other then a war lord or tyrant regime. Iraqi people are much more educated, and much less religiously bound, them many Middle Eastern countries. But it is going to take time, and it is going to take serious support, to come about. I'm much more concerned with Afghanistan returning to a tyranny completely or a strict religious oligraphy. ---StarPilot

Yes there are big messes and our historical frameworks are setting us up to continue in this fashion. It seems you are happy with the structure as it is, because "might" is defining "right". With the idea of NewLaw I was hoping we could build a better structure for the future. True, my view that that legal redress of the coalition is not popular in AnewGo or elsewhere. Somehow we need to at least attempt to think past this never ending cycle of violence. ---PhillipBannigan

I do not know if I would say it's a never ending cycle of violence. Some matters have stopped. Others have come to prominence in the different spats that are going on. Most of the conflicts in the world really aren't a cycle of violence; they are cycles of greed, intimidation, and power mongering. And even if we can get all the nations of the world to sign over their sovereignity over to one world authority/government (say, a "United AnewGo"), that behaviour is going to continue. It's basic to the human animal. You see that very same behavior of power-monger through any means in all societies.

There are real circles of violence in the world (blood fueds, crusades/jihads, etc), but if you look into the social dynamics of the groups involved, you will easily find power-mongers inflaming those blood fueds. Why? Means to power.

I am happy with my own country doing as it chooses, as I do not believe the concerns of two different flavors of fundamentalist churches in Africa should have any significant say in how I should live my personal life. I understand that so long we have seperate governments, we are going to have them acting in their own self interests, and that they will not act in fashion that everyone will always approve. As my government is only responsible to me, I do not care if you do not like it. It only matters what I think. I pay for my government, I vote in and vote out my representatives in my government. You may influence my government through me in the social network we form. You may bring up a particular matter. If I agree with you, I'll act accordingly to try and influence my own government. If I don't, then I'll ignore the matter.

However, I understand something that you do not seem to either understand, or at least are not willing to accept: all social authority derives from the might of the group. That is the basis of law since we have thrown out "Divine Right". As each country is its own social group, this means that countries are not going to feel that they have to obey or honor other groups rules. International Law and Treaties are merely agreements between various groups on various things. It ceases to work the instant when a group no longer agrees with it. And that is what we see today. It is what we see throughout all of civilizations past. It is what we can expect of all treaties and laws of the future. Only when the majority agree, does the majority obey and stick to their word. This is part of the base nature of humans. And it comes through in all our relationships, no matter the scale.

Might always determines Right, ultimately. To be unhappy with this is, I believe, part of the normal cycle of being human. However, to dream of a world without this activity is to dream of a world without humans. I see no way to change this aspect of humanity and still leave the HumanAnimal with its own free will or spirit. If you do, I welcome you to share your ideas and visions of how to do this. ---StarPilot

Personal tools