Puppet regime in 8 easy steps

[Sander]

There is no such thing as a "sense" of legality.

Yes, there is. It is the feeling that something is legal because you have a general consent from the countries around the world.

Just because the Security Council says its ok for Country A to invade Province B doesn't mean that its right.

Nope, it doesn't. But just the fact that a court ruled that someone is guilty of a crime doesn't mean that he is guilty either.
What I mean to say, is that it doesn't make any war any more or less right, but it does give a mark of "the international community approves" to that war. Making it legal. Don't confuse legal with right or justified, it's a measure to establish whether something is considered right or justified.

Not to mention the subjective nature of justification.

Yes, justification is subjective, which is exactly why there should be such a thing as legality obtained through the consent of the large majority of the countries around the world, making the justification as objective as possible.

Either war must be illegal period, or it must be universally unregulated.

That's just stupid. That's saying that either the allies never should've touched Hitler, or Hitler should've been allowed to take over every country he wanted. Neither option is any good.

That doesn't, of course mean that all wars must be permitted to happen, but what's the point in declaring something illegal when you have no way of stopping it?

...
Stupid....reasoning. "I can't stop it, so I guess it's A-Okay..."
Yeah fucking right.

 

[Bradylama]

Yes, there is. It is the feeling that something is legal because you have a general consent from the countries around the world.

No, there is no such thing as a sense of legality, because the legality of an action or substance is determined by law. Not general consent.

If you said there was a sense of right or wrong, I would agree with you. But right and wrong don't equate to legality.

Besides, it's already been established that the war was legal, and that the US was invoking UN resolutions to justify it. Now, if those resolutions had been repealed by way of another resolution, then the war would have been illegal, but they weren't. People think the war is illegal because they don't like it, but its that very kind of reasoning that illustrates the flaws of putting faith in an organization that uses Primitive Law.

Yes, justification is subjective, which is exactly why there should be such a thing as legality obtained through the consent of the large majority of the countries around the world, making the justification as objective as possible.

There is no way to make justification objective. There'd be a lot less confusion if countries opposed wars for their own reasons instead of trying to hide their agendas behind a false sense of legality.

That's just stupid. That's saying that either the allies never should've touched Hitler, or Hitler should've been allowed to take over every country he wanted. Neither option is any good.

No, it doesn't. It means that the Allies should have opposed Hitler because he threatened their sovereignty, not because Hitler violated some sense of international law.

...
Stupid....reasoning. "I can't stop it, so I guess it's A-Okay..."
Yeah fucking right.

I didn't say it was ok. I said that just because you don't like something doesn't give reason for making it illegal. (e.g. homosexual marriage)

 

[Claw]

Besides, it's already been established that the war was legal, and that the US was invoking UN resolutions to justify it. Now, if those resolutions had been repealed by way of another resolution, then the war would have been illegal, but they weren't..

Not it hasn't.

The US didn't have the right to invoke anything*. In fact, the US considered to bring in a new resolution which would actually have granted them the right to invade, but refrained from doing so after France threatened to veto it. Also, UN resolutions have a tendency to repeal earlier resolutions as a rule. It's a "this is our current stance, overruling whatever we said before" deal. It's a bit hard to keep track of the multitude of resolutions, so go ahead and show me the exact resolution granting the US or any member nation the right to act on its own.

*Well, not literally anything. But nothing that would grant them the legitimation to act on their own authority afaik.

 

[Sander]

No, there is no such thing as a sense of legality, because the legality of an action or substance is determined by law. Not general consent.

Notice the word "sense".

If you said there was a sense of right or wrong, I would agree with you. But right and wrong don't equate to legality.

As I said.

Besides, it's already been established that the war was legal, and that the US was invoking UN resolutions to justify it. Now, if those resolutions had been repealed by way of another resolution, then the war would have been illegal, but they weren't. People think the war is illegal because they don't like it, but its that very kind of reasoning that illustrates the flaws of putting faith in an organization that uses Primitive Law.

I didn't say it WAS illegal, now did I?

There is no way to make justification objective. There'd be a lot less confusion if countries opposed wars for their own reasons instead of trying to hide their agendas behind a false sense of legality.

I said "as objective as possible." that is not the same as objective. READ what I say the next time.

No, it doesn't. It means that the Allies should have opposed Hitler because he threatened their sovereignty, not because Hitler violated some sense of international law.

That's bullshit and it's not what you said. You said "Either war must be illegal period, or it must be universally unregulated."
In other words: everyone minds their own fucking business. No matter how many people are killed, or how many countries are invaded, or whatever happens, as long as you're not bothered you don't go in. That's just completely silly and ignorant.

I didn't say it was ok. I said that just because you don't like something doesn't give reason for making it illegal. (e.g. homosexual marriage)

No, that's not what you said. You said that if you can't stop something you shouldn't make it illegal. That's vastly different.

As well as that, that's a really bad example and bad reasoning as well, because the reasoning behind ANY law is "do we think it should be legal or not." There is no objective way to create laws, and as such there is no objective way to create international laws either. So instead of just allowing or disallowing everything (neither of which is feasible) you create a body that can decide whether a war is legal or not: the UN.

 

[Bradylama]

Notice the word "sense".

sense (sns)
n.

1. Any of the faculties by which stimuli from outside or inside the body are received and felt, as the faculties of hearing, sight, smell, touch, taste, and equilibrium.
2. A perception or feeling that is produced by a stimulus; sensation, as of hunger.

I'm well aware of what sense is. However, just because one has a feeling that something is illegal doesn't mean they're right when they say that it is. That's my point.

I didn't say it WAS illegal, now did I?

No, I was talking about Soyz. I'm bringing my argument back to my original statement. What's the point in making assertions if I don't support them?

I said "as objective as possible." that is not the same as objective. READ what I say the next time.

I read what you said. And I'm saying that attempting to make something subjective objective is impossible. What point is there in making it as "objective as possible" if it's not objective? What right does the UN have to say that certain types of justifications aren't justified?

That's bullshit and it's not what you said. You said "Either war must be illegal period, or it must be universally unregulated."
In other words: everyone minds their own fucking business. No matter how many people are killed, or how many countries are invaded, or whatever happens, as long as you're not bothered you don't go in. That's just completely silly and ignorant.

No, now you're putting words in my mouth. Just because wars are unregulated doesn't mean that other countries can't intervene on someone's behalf, or do so for humanitarian reasons. Just because a war isn't regulated doesn't mean that it can't or won't be stopped by an outside force.

And the Allies's sovereignty being threatened would qualify as "minding their own business."

No, that's not what you said. You said that if you can't stop something you shouldn't make it illegal. That's vastly different.

I said "what's the point?"


Claw: Resolution 1441 grants any permanent member of the security council the right to force Iraq to comply to previous resolutions in the event that they fail to.

 

[Sander]

sense (sns)
n.

1. Any of the faculties by which stimuli from outside or inside the body are received and felt, as the faculties of hearing, sight, smell, touch, taste, and equilibrium.
2. A perception or feeling that is produced by a stimulus; sensation, as of hunger.

I'm well aware of what sense is. However, just because one has a feeling that something is illegal doesn't mean they're right when they say that it is. That's my point.

Actually, no, this was your original point:

Anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was illegal in the first place has to be of the opinion that all war is illegal. Does a UN approval change the nature of war?

This part of the discussion did not became part of it because you made the point that people shouldn't think it's illegal because it wasn't, but that either everything or nothing is illegal.
Don't try to dodge on me.

No, I was talking about Soyz. I'm bringing my argument back to my original statement. What's the point in making assertions if I don't support them?

And, as you may notice, that was not your earliest point.

I read what you said. And I'm saying that attempting to make something subjective objective is impossible.

And I'm not saying it's making it objective, I'm saying it's making it as objective as possible. How hard is it to understand those four words?

What point is there in making it as "objective as possible" if it's not objective?

Getting as close to objective as possible?

What right does the UN have to say that certain types of justifications aren't justified?

Just as much right as my government has to say that I can't take the computer from my neighbour's house without their consent.
As I've said before, the UN is the international community, and when you need to judge whether something is legal or justified or not, you need to look at what is "above" or one an equal level with you. As such, because the UN is a body of almost every country in the world, the UN has a certain amount of justification in judging over the countries deeds.
As we live in a world where democracy is still the best(least bad)-known way of ruling, making a democratic decision whether a war is justified is the closest we can get to objectivity in these cases.

No, now you're putting words in my mouth. Just because wars are unregulated doesn't mean that other countries can't intervene on someone's behalf

Bullshit. If countries intervene, they are regulating.

Just because a war isn't regulated doesn't mean that it can't or won't be stopped by an outside force.

Bullshit, because again, it is then regulated by those countries intervening, it is just regulated on a different and much more subjective scale.

EDIT: By the by, if the sovereignity of the USA hadn't been threatened by Hitler's stupidity, according to your previous statement, the USA would have had no right to intervene, and I'd now be living in a Greater German Reich without any Jews, Gays or "Gypsies". Go you!

 

[welsh]

OMFG you're being antimsemitic LEWL and ypu hat3 the US! '

English! Damn you English!

Conspiracy theorists are not convincing because they have little evidence to support their claims, which also detracts from their relevant opinions (boy who cried wolf).

Not exactly. There are lots of conspiracy theories that have lots of proof. For instance, Dale Copeland in the Origins of Major War cites to a conspiracy among the leadership of Wilhelm II's adminitration to begin World War 1. Lots of evidence to prove that conspiracy.

Just because it's a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's not true.

That said, the problem with conspiracy theory is the devotion that events are caused primarily by the decisions of free agents acting in collective fashion. But that denies (1) the power of structure in shaping events, and (2) the problems of collective action, and usually (3) the difficult of secrecy.

 

[welsh]

To the points above-

Actually there was a Security Council Resolution authorizing member states to act, I believe individually, to enforce the UN security provisions against Saddam Hussein. The question then becomes whether Saddam acted in such a way that made enforcement of the security provisions wrongful. Especially provision (4) of that resolution matters.

However-

Yes, there is. It is the feeling that something is legal because you have a general consent from the countries around the world.

No, there is no such thing as a sense of legality, because the legality of an action or substance is determined by law. Not general consent.

THis is actually an error.
Article 38 of the international court of justice defines what are the sources of international law.

Article 38
1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.

ALso note-
http://www.walter.gehr.net/source.html

Now the US is party to both the UN and the ICJ as a treaty, therefore the US is bound under the law of treaty.

However, you will also note that there are two other basis- customary international law and the practices of national legal systems.

Customary law works when countries practice a law as if they believed they were obligated to practice it. Practices of national systems is generally what most countries of the world would recognize as legal or illegal. So murder, which most countries have laws against, would be a violation of international law. The last- writings of jurists and scholars- is more a suggestion or persuasive body of evidence and the weakest basis of all.

But the point being- yes, general consent matters and can be the basis of law. What matters is how that consent manifests and is proven. That is a question for the courts.

If you said there was a sense of right or wrong, I would agree with you. But right and wrong don't equate to legality.

That depends on what basis you use for deciding what is right and wrong. If you accept ad hoc personal choices or what you feel is justified, than your moral code is subject to preferences and arguably no moral code at all (since preferences can be used instrumentally to justify your acts). If on the other hand you stick closely to a strong moral code, than you at least have an objective basis of morality to which you must answer to.

That said, the fact that the US took great pains to argue that what it was doing was in compliance ot international law reflects not the weakness of international law (in which case you are juding the strength of the law by outcomes) but the strength of the law (measured by the pains in which a country strives to stay within the law while still carrying out it's objectives).

In that sense what the US was doing was little different than a company or an individual trying to justify avoiding taxes through his interpretation of law. He's trying to both comply and do what he wants. ALternatively the US could have said, "Fuck international law, we're the super power and hegemon and our choices prevail." The US didn't do that (which would be analogous to tax evasion- completely defecting from complying with law). And that speaks strongly about the importance of international law to the US.

Besides, it's already been established that the war was legal, and that the US was invoking UN resolutions to justify it. Now, if those resolutions had been repealed by way of another resolution, then the war would have been illegal, but they weren't. People think the war is illegal because they don't like it, but its that very kind of reasoning that illustrates the flaws of putting faith in an organization that uses Primitive Law.

Such a resolution would never have been past because of the nature of power within the Security Council.

The Charter of the UN gives Security Council resolutions mandatory effect- they become law (something not true of General Assembly Resolutions). But deciding what becomes law has to get past that UN Security Council veto. The US would never have allowed such a resolution to pass.

And that's were the question of positive power (the idea that real power decides what the law is) begins to replace the notion of legitimate or moral authority.

If the way mandatory executive resolutions are made is seen, by the public, as being unjustified or immoral or an abuse of power (and let's be honest, the Security COuncil was a creation to maintain the status quo of power following World War 2) than the legitimacy of those decisions begins to be question. When law loses it's moral force it begins to weaken.

Governments, even international ones, have two ways of influencing people- action, often through repressive physical force, or hegemony- receiving the tacit acceptance by subordinates that their leadership is acceptable.

Yes, justification is subjective, which is exactly why there should be such a thing as legality obtained through the consent of the large majority of the countries around the world, making the justification as objective as possible.

There is no way to make justification objective. There'd be a lot less confusion if countries opposed wars for their own reasons instead of trying to hide their agendas behind a false sense of legality.

Actually there is a way to make justification objective- again by testing the standards of international law to figure out what are the prevailing norms. The Supreme Court does that all the time in deciding matters of Constitutional Law, and the ICJ does that when it governs on international law.

As for using legality- you are missing the point. Law is a form of power. What is law is decided by moral choices reached through political means.

Whether one body uses law as a weapon or as a defense is irrelevant. In either case law is just a tool. It is political will, power, and preferences that make the difference.

That's just stupid. That's saying that either the allies never should've touched Hitler, or Hitler should've been allowed to take over every country he wanted. Neither option is any good.

That entire point is silly but also ahistorical. Before the Second World War and in the effort to stop another war, both the Germans and the Allies had signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing offensive war. Violation of that was used to explain the German's breach of, or crime against, peace. Before that pact it was commonly accepted that nations had the positivist right to go to war and that war really was just politics by other means.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was supercided by the UN Charter which tightly regulates the right of states to go to war under Article 2(4) and Article 51.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Article 2- The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles....
(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

No, it doesn't. It means that the Allies should have opposed Hitler because he threatened their sovereignty, not because Hitler violated some sense of international law.

Under the current UN system the Allies had the right to do both- Under Art 51 to protect themselves through collective means and to enforce a treaty obligation of Germany.

Interestingly, this is where the Nuremburg Tribunal got into trouble with Crimes against Humanity. It was easy to try the Germans for the holocaust commited against non-German Jews, but damn difficult to nail Germany under crimes to it's own Jewish population. Why? Because Germany was a sovereign state and thus beyond the power of other countries for acts done within it's own territory.

I didn't say it was ok. I said that just because you don't like something doesn't give reason for making it illegal. (e.g. homosexual marriage)

Yes, but this is the mechanism by which law is made. Moral choices reached through political means.

 

[Bradylama]

Bullshit. If countries intervene, they are regulating.

But the war isn't being regulated by an international body like the UN. Nor is it being regulated by some sense of international law.

Jesus Christ, doesn't anybody recognize context?

 

[victor]

Say what you want, but those 8 steps to take over another country seem like a pretty efficient recipe. I'm going to have to try it out sometime.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

Maybe you could try it out on canada....

 

[quietfanatic]

If a conspiracy theory is true, then it becomes a fact

Depressingly, but unsurprisingly, our Conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, has just responded to the official 'no WMDs and faulty intelligence reports' statement of the Australian Government's investigation with the pledge that he would do it all again and that he 'forgot' to put that little 'unclear' word before 'intelligence report' in his speeches justifying going to war.

Slimey politicians, 'We have intelligence' is not the same as 'We have unclear intelligence'.

Our 'unbiased' (lefty) national broadcaster rightly hammered the thick skinned bastard. I am always surprised to know that many people still vote for 'tough' and stubborn reactionaries that destroy health and education.

I can only hope that we can get rid of him this time.

 

[Sander]

But the war isn't being regulated by an international body like the UN. Nor is it being regulated by some sense of international law.

Jesus Christ, doesn't anybody recognize context?

That's it. That's all you have to say to my and welsh's entire post? That really is all?
Wow. Ran out of arguments, did you?

In any case: whether war is regulated by an international body or by countries themselves is actually quite a moot point. The wars remain regulated.
However, allowing countries themselves to regulate them without control is a recipe for problems. Mainly because this would mean that the USA could've invaded Iraq withou any pretext or explanation whatsoever and they wouldn't have heard a thing. It also means that a lot of other things could've happened without an actual supreme body saying that it was bad, thus giving it an air of justification of the disapproval instead of just leaving it to the countries themselves to intervene.

 

[Bradylama]

That's it. That's all you have to say to my and welsh's entire post? That really is all?
Wow. Ran out of arguments, did you?

Don't flatter yourself. I would've had plenty to say in response to yourself. Welsh, though, answered all of my statements to the point where continuing the discussion would have been pointless.

Pretty words and statements aren't going to change the fact that nobody could stop the coalition invasion of Iraq. Every time the UN has had to "intervene" in a conflict, they've had to rely on American power to assert influence, because their "Security Forces" are as impotent as Russian nuclear researchers. If nations are going to express dissatisfaction over something, they should do so in the form of public outcry (which happened quite a bit) and formal statements from state governments. There's not a whole lot of point in issuing laws that can't be enforced, however. It perverts the sense of law and sets up a system that can be easily exploited.

As an international forum, the UN is perfect. But international dissatisfaction shouldn't be made into law unless those laws can be enforced.

 

[welsh]

Ah Quiet Fanatic- A theory is merely a simplification of hypotheses from which we hope to draw conclusions about the nature of the world. It's just a tool for understanding.

My point was simple- is overly deterministic- a conspiracy theorist will look for explanations to fit his conclusions, ignoring or relegating contrary reasons or facts to suit his conclusions. THis is why conspiracy theories are not convincing. Because at a certain point it is more an article of faith than of fact.

Of course there are those foolish enough to believe that there is no truth. WIthout truth can there be fact.

Let's go back to the example of Copeland for the origins of World War 1. Copeland points out that there were many Balkans Crises and the Austrians were dieing to do some kick ass on Serbia but the Germans consistently restrained them. Why? Because the time was not right for Germany to go to war. Yet the Germans were also faced with what they believed was an overriding threat from Russia. Russia had begun a rearmament campaign that would have eventually led to, what Germans believed to be, overwhelming military superiority. SInce the Germans were unwilling to accept that change in the status quo, they sought to stop the Russians before they got too strong. But first they had to build their own armaments.

It became a conspiracy because those among the ruling elite pushed for the war even though, near the 11th hour, the Kaiser suddenly got cold feet and said, "Fuck this! We're not going to war" (or words to that effect). To which his ministers lied and said, "It's too late, we're already committed."

Copeland's Origins of Major War is one of the current important reads in Political Science on the origins of conflict. There is a conspiracy there, but the theory for the war is not the instrumental nature of a conspiracy. Rather, it finds itself in a theory of hegemonic cycles and the rise and decline of states. Copeland's theory is that a state that sees itself in inevitable decline vis-a-vis a rising challenger will initiate major war to prevent losing it's dominant position.

Bullshit. If countries intervene, they are regulating.

But the war isn't being regulated by an international body like the UN. Nor is it being regulated by some sense of international law.

Jesus Christ, doesn't anybody recognize context?

No, that's not correct either. For example World War 2 was still a war fought and carried out, generally under principles of international law, although there were some exceptions.

For example strategic bombing of cities and the use of submarine warfare were considered illegal. Yet both sides did it. Yet biological and chemical warfare were also considered illegal and neither side did. So there was some compliance and some rejection. Countries recognized each other's neutrality and sovereignty, there was an expectation of treatment of prisoners and civilians, there were normal practices of diplomacy and commerce, even during wartime.

So even though some laws were broken most were followed.

Once need not have a regulating body supervise a war for it to be legal. If that were the case there would be very few "legal wars." What matters is that countries practice war in compliance with international standards.

My point above was that the US stretched the notion of international law to defend it's case which recognizes the importance of maintain an aire of legal correctness. Why? Well much of that has to do with the response of neighbors and the dependability of international relations.

Does international law get broken- yes, and often.

But most countries comply with international law most of the time (nearly 99% of the time).

Why? Because law protects the status quo and property. By complying with a system of law we have dependable transaction and relations. TO act without law or in contradiction of law is to take risks.

As the world's leading power, as hegemon, the US can achieve it's will either through two ways- force and the threat of force, or through consent. By acting in compliance with law and by making the best moral argument it seeks to obtain consensual recognition of it's dominance. Why? Because using force and the threat of force becomes expensive and is less cost-effective.

Again the point- law is moral choice reached through political processes.

 

[Sander]

Pretty words and statements aren't going to change the fact that nobody could stop the coalition invasion of Iraq. Every time the UN has had to "intervene" in a conflict, they've had to rely on American power to assert influence, because their "Security Forces" are as impotent as Russian nuclear researchers. If nations are going to express dissatisfaction over something, they should do so in the form of public outcry (which happened quite a bit) and formal statements from state governments. There's not a whole lot of point in issuing laws that can't be enforced, however. It perverts the sense of law and sets up a system that can be easily exploited.

So, instead of actually issuing a statement saying "We dissaprove" you're just going to let things go by?
Right, if everyone thought like that, there would've been no public protest against the Iraq War (why bother, we can't stop it) or basically any governmental decisions.

 

[Jay]

The US went to war because we wanted to. Legal, shmegal, kiss off. If you don't like it, declare war on us, and we will stomp your ass flat, too. We have been footing the bill to keep this planet in one piece since 1941...as long as YOUR country keeps taking our money so YOU can afford all your dippy socialist agendas, stop bitching, sit down, shut up, and stay the hell outta our way...

Jay

 

[Sander]

The US went to war because we wanted to. Legal, shmegal, kiss off. If you don't like it, declare war on us, and we will stomp your ass flat, too. We have been footing the bill to keep this planet in one piece since 1941...as long as YOUR country keeps taking our money so YOU can afford all your dippy socialist agendas, stop bitching, sit down, shut up, and stay the hell outta our way...

Wow. American arrogance at its worst.

Right, here we go:
Fuck you. We owe you nothing because you involved yourself in the world. You did it out of self-interest, not out of benevolence. Moreover, saying one country owes another is plain stupid. This would mean that anyone who had owed Hitler something had the moral obligation to help him, according to you. Oweing someone something does not figure into politics of any kind.

Secondly, this kind of attitude is stupid and simply pisses me off. It's the exact attitude of the great dictatorial powers of the past: we do what we want, you don't like it, come taste our steel. That's no justification or diplomacy or, in fact, involving oneself in international businesses, it's simply acting like a totalitarian ruler. In case you hadn't noticed, the US was one of the founding members of the UN and has said it will abide by the UN's charter, saying "we do what we want, and invade who we want" is NOT abiding that charter.
Furthermore, our countries have long since stopped taking money from the USA, the Marsall plan ended a long time ago, and the Marshall plan was yet another act of self-preservation from the side of the US. Much of the USA's riches have come from the Marshall plan, because the restoration of Europe as an economic market has provided many business opportunities for the USA.
In fact, with the huge deficit of the USA right now, the USA is probably accepting money (loans) from other countries to keep in shape. So fuck off with your "we gave you money, shut up"-attitude. If you want to go that way, remember the reason why it is that you actually exist as a country these days: France.
Oh, and your suggesting that our "socialist" agendas are somehow inprofitable and that we need your money to afford it: Hah! The Netherlands have one of the biggest welfare states in the world, and before the economic problems of the post-9/11 world we were the ONLY country actually REDUCING it state debts. In other words: we were much more profitable than you guys.

 

[Jay]

Wow. American arrogance at its worst.

You got it, sunshine...

Right, here we go:
Fuck you. We owe you nothing because you involved yourself in the world. You did it out of self-interest, not out of benevolence. Moreover, saying one country owes another is plain stupid. This would mean that anyone who had owed Hitler something had the moral obligation to help him, according to you. Oweing someone something does not figure into politics of any kind.

Fuck you right back...I'm sure now that Hitler is a fading memory and the Soviets are dead and gone you are more than happy to tell the US to fuck off and say you don't owe us anything. That's fine, you got what you wanted/needed, go ahead and screw us over. Just stop whining when we don't do what YOU want us to do all the time.

Secondly, this kind of attitude is stupid and simply pisses me off. It's the exact attitude of the great dictatorial powers of the past: we do what we want, you don't like it, come taste our steel. That's no justification or diplomacy or, in fact, involving oneself in international businesses, it's simply acting like a totalitarian ruler. In case you hadn't noticed, the US was one of the founding members of the UN and has said it will abide by the UN's charter, saying "we do what we want, and invade who we want" is NOT abiding that charter.

No, it's acting like a soveriegn state. Not only did we MAKE the UN and ram it down the rest of the world's throat to keep WWIII from destroying the planet, we funded it and continue to fund it to this day. The UN is our allies, not our parents or our bosses. We don't have to ask permission.

Furthermore, our countries have long since stopped taking money from the USA, the Marsall plan ended a long time ago, and the Marshall plan was yet another act of self-preservation from the side of the US. Much of the USA's riches have come from the Marshall plan, because the restoration of Europe as an economic market has provided many business opportunities for the USA.
In fact, with the huge deficit of the USA right now, the USA is probably accepting money (loans) from other countries to keep in shape. So fuck off with your "we gave you money, shut up"-attitude. If you want to go that way, remember the reason why it is that you actually exist as a country these days: France.

Check your history. When WWII ended, the only one still standing in the west was the US. We rebuilt Europe, and yes, we profited from it. Thanks, guys.

As far as France is concerned, they helped us back in 1770's, and we pulled their chestnuts out of the fire twice in the 20th century. I'd call that fair.

Oh, and your suggesting that our "socialist" agendas are somehow inprofitable and that we need your money to afford it: Hah! The Netherlands have one of the biggest welfare states in the world, and before the economic problems of the post-9/11 world we were the ONLY country actually REDUCING it state debts. In other words: we were much more profitable than you guys.

Sure, you didn't have to pay for things like armies and missles to keep the Soviets from turning your countries into "buffer states" during the cold war. Ruined your chance to have all those cool celebrations like the East Germans when the Soviet Union turned into a failed economic experiement.

But hey, we are still here, you still hate us...and because we are nice, every time you get your ass in a crack we will come running to help, no matter how many time you spit on us or tell us to fuck off.

Jay

 

[Wooz]