Pakistan Rejected CIA Request for Drone Strike in January

[SMC]

No, YOU are not getting the point(s).

Firstly, I am not saying morals and ethics should not apply to states; I am saying morals and ethics do not apply to states. Big difference.

Then that makes the relevance of groups such as UN even more questionable. Why do they exist? Remember, one of their major function is to decide the legality of a war. If states do not have such morals and ethics, why such things exist?

Secondly, those international entities have NEVER prosecuted STATES because they CANNOT, by definition. Can you name any example where anything other than individual/individuals has/have been tried? These entities serve useful international geopolitical purposes, pure and simple.

No, they can't be tried the way individuals are tried. That's irrelevant though. You can still put sanctions against a state, justify a war against a state, as long as a set of rules are being satisfied. You can declare another state to be a terrorist state. How is Iran being treated any less than a criminal on a death row?

Thirdly, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; it all depends on whose definition holds sway when backed up by resources of the supporting parties. That may not seem fair to you, but that is just the way it is, sorry.

So again, then, there's nothing wrong with supporting such groups I suppose.

 

[VCheng]

Then that makes the relevance of groups such as UN even more questionable. Why do they exist? Remember, one of their major function is to decide the legality of a war. If states do not have such morals and ethics, why such things exist?



No, they can't be tried the way individuals are tried. That's irrelevant though. You can still put sanctions against a state, justify a war against a state, as long as a set of rules are being satisfied. You can declare another state to be a terrorist state. How is Iran being treated any less than a criminal on a death row?



So again, then, there's nothing wrong with supporting such groups I suppose.

I think your own post is the best reply to your questions above.

........................
You don't know much about UN, do you?

 

[SMC]

Nah, that holds for you. You don't know anything about UN. Please learn some basic political science before barking off.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

False analogy, for there is no comparing an individual to a country. Morals and Ethics apply to the former but not the latter.

The analogy is completely apt - in both cases we are referring to an entity, the policies that entity pursues, and the impact of those policies on ordinary people.

Whether we talk of a Feudal Lord or a State that acts solely for the sake of its interests, without consideration of the impact its actions on others, the consequences are tangible and will impact other human beings.

Just because a State is not 'human' does not mean the impact of its policies will not be felt by human beings - the German Nazis, The US Establishment when supporting dictatorial regimes that perpetrated atrocities and its abuse of power to wage war and illegal military strikes and operations that have resulted in the deaths of millions.

The US Establishment acts like, and is, a Global Feudal Lord.

 

[VCheng]

......................
The US Establishment acts like, and is, a Global Feudal Lord.

Human history has many examples of dominant entities behaving in a manner that, from the outside, is perceived as what you described, and USA is no exception. However, the other side of the same coin, when seen from the inside, is perceived as being a rightful pursuit of national interests.

 

[haviZsultan]

The analogy is completely apt - in both cases we are referring to an entity, the policies that entity pursues, and the impact of those policies on ordinary people.

Whether we talk of a Feudal Lord or a State that acts solely for the sake of its interests, without consideration of the impact its actions on others, the consequences are tangible and will impact other human beings.

Just because a State is not 'human' does not mean the impact of its policies will not be felt by human beings - the German Nazis, The US Establishment when supporting dictatorial regimes that perpetrated atrocities and its abuse of power to wage war and illegal military strikes and operations that have resulted in the deaths of millions.

The US Establishment acts like, and is, a Global Feudal Lord.

Well said, the US establishment can never be questioned. They do what they want, when they want, to whomever they want.

 

[VCheng]

Well said, the US establishment can never be questioned. They do what they want, when they want, to whomever they want.

Isn't that the definition of a superpower?

 

[haviZsultan]

Theres a point when a superpower loses its respect. The US has gone beyond that point years ago.

 

[VCheng]

Theres a point when a superpower loses its respect. The US has gone beyond that point years ago.

Why would that be a concern significant enough to change overall policy? The effects of what you mention are manageable at the moment.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Human history has many examples of dominant entities behaving in a manner that, from the outside, is perceived as what you described, and USA is no exception. However, the other side of the same coin, when seen from the inside, is perceived as being a rightful pursuit of national interests.

The 'other side of the coin', when seen from the 'inside', for a Feudal Lord/dictator, is also essentially the same:

I (Feudal Lord/US/Super Power) need to maintain my power and authority and destroy/subjugate any who challenge me.

I (Feudal Lord/US/Super Power) need to ensure that I and MY Family (US citizens in the case of the US) have every opportunity and luxury possible, everyone else be damned, and I (Feudal Lord/US) will resort to criminal, immoral and unethical actions to ensure that my family/citizens have every thing I can possibly give them.

Again, the US Establishment is nothing better than a Global Feudal Lord crushing the weak and engaging in all manner of criminal, immoral and unethical behavior to ensure that its own 'national interests' are safeguarded.

You can be as verbose (national interests, geo-politics) as you want in trying to, as Obama said, put lipstick on a Pig, its still a pig - and people around the world suffer because of the policies of that Pig.

---------- Post added at 10:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

Isn't that the definition of a superpower?

Its also the definition of a thug, gangster, Feudal Lord, dictator, Kim Jong Il, Gaddafi, Idi Amin ...

 

[VCheng]

The 'other side of the coin', when seen from the 'inside', for a Feudal Lord/dictator, is also essentially the same:

I (Feudal Lord/US/Super Power) need to maintain my power and authority and destroy/subjugate any who challenge me.

I (Feudal Lord/US/Super Power) need to ensure that I and MY Family (US citizens in the case of the US) have every opportunity and luxury possible, everyone else be damned, and I (Feudal Lord/US) will resort to criminal, immoral and unethical actions to ensure that my family/citizens have every thing I can possibly give them.

Again, the US Establishment is nothing better than a Global Feudal Lord crushing the weak and engaging in all manner of criminal, immoral and unethical behavior to ensure that its own 'national interests' are safeguarded.

You can be as verbose (national interests, geo-politics) as you want in trying to, as Obama said, put lipstick on a Pig, its still a pig - and people around the world suffer because of the policies of that Pig.

---------- Post added at 10:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------


Its also the definition of a thug, gangster, Feudal Lord, dictator, Kim Jong Il, Gaddafi, Idi Amin ...

Okay, let me be brief: You think USA is a pig; fine. So what?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Okay, let me be brief: You think USA is a pig; fine. So what?

Stop justifying/defending US policies when they are immoral, unethical and criminal.

Stating the obvious, that the global thug/feudal lord faces no checks and controls given its power, is a complete waste of time.

 

[VCheng]

Stop justifying/defending US policies when they are immoral, unethical and criminal.

Stating the obvious, that the global thug/feudal lord faces no checks and controls given its power, is a complete waste of time.

My point has been, and will be, that mere condemnation of policies that are seen to be unjust is not sufficient to change them. Unless you are so used to protesting for protesting's sake that you forget to think about what is needed to change such policies for the better to Pakistan's advantage?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My point has been, and will be, that mere condemnation of policies that are seen to be unjust is not sufficient to change them. Unless you are so used to protesting for protesting's sake that you forget to think about what is needed to change such policies for the better to Pakistan's advantage?

Whether condemnation changes policies or not isn't the point - without accepting that the policies are immoral, unethical and criminal, how can consensus be arrived at that they must change?

 

[VCheng]

Whether condemnation changes policies or not isn't the point - without accepting that the policies are immoral, unethical and criminal, how can consensus be arrived at that they must change?

Oh I agree with you that policies need to change, specially US policies. However, I am also convinced that condemnation for the sake of condemnation is totally non-productive.

See, you are spending all your effort is crying "foul" in a game where admittedly the playing field is tilted. It is better to accept the rules, and then play it better than the opposing side to the point where you get to write the rules.

That is all I am saying.