Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Another silly war topic on human nature (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="http://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=14133" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Another silly war topic on human nature (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Another silly war topic on human nature <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
Moon Shadow
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Rouen, France
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 03-09-2003 20:16

Mr Blix said recently that France was exposed to repercussions if she used his veto right...

What is that ? Just BLACKMAIL !

And now, France and USA are trying by all means to get the voices of the countries that still do not have an opinion about going to war with Iraq...

What is that ? Just one of the worst outcome of our economic and commercial system.

I am really, really, saddened by all this stuff. How did we get to this point ? Trying to obtain a voice concerning a war that will kill thousands of people by economic advantages ? I never thought human nature was SO bad.

Well... I wanted to express that, if you want to give your opinion please do so, I would be pleased to know it.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 03-09-2003 20:27

Anyone's actions are subject to repercussion.

I can only assume Blix was simply pointing out that france's refusal to comprimise would carry some significant ones.

It's fact, not blackmail.

Dan
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 03-09-2003 20:53

So, France has $US40billion+ deals in place to develop the Majnoon and Bin Umar oil fields in Iraq. France is second only to Russia (who mysteriously also are against the war with Iraq) in unpaid Iraqi debt - which they would never be repaid if they supported war against them. You're trying to tell us France would be using its veto to stop a war thatís in favor of US economic advantages? France would only be abusing its veto power for its own economic interest, it has absolutely nothing to do with an illegal war or saving lives, France doesn't want the US to come in and walk away with the oil contracts that they starved Iraqi citizens to get.

Is the US only in favor of war for its own interests? You're damn right it is. But France is no better for opposing it.

More to the issue. What kind of repercussions would we see if France vetoed a UN resolution? The US would increase trade tariffs on France? The US would stop importing some goods from France? The US would stop sending soldiers to France, and stop helping to boost the French economy in other ways? Maybe. But those are all America's right to do, its not blackmail, if France hurts America by vetoing a resolution thatís in America's interest, then it should be expected that America will be unhappy with France, and will stop helping them more than they need to. Its not like America is going to take away from France, or directly hurt them, they'll just stop giving as much to them.

Moon Shadow
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Rouen, France
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 03-09-2003 21:16

Dan your reaction is... quite extreme. But I asked for it... I want to clarify a few things.

quote:
You're trying to tell us France would be using its veto to stop a war that?s in favor of US economic advantages?



France is NOT opposing to USA because this war would maybe increase their profits. At least this is what I believe. You are maybe 'helped' to think that we are jealous from your economic power, but it is not the case.

quote:
France doesn't want the US to come in and walk away with the oil contracts that they starved Iraqi citizens to get.



This is... I can' t explain what I think. Searching the dictionnary... Yes. This is MEAN/PETTY to think like that. Why the hell are you saying we starved voluntarily Iraqi citizens ? Are you sure this is isn't another CNN 'truthful' history points that lead you to think that ? I am... insulted... ravished if my dictionnary is correct... I am. Pfffff. Goodbye.

Dan
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 03-09-2003 21:29

First of all, I'm not American, and I've never lived in America. I also have no reason to believe that France would be jealous of Canada's economic power.
In this situation, you really want America to look like the bad guy, that's all fine and good, but you've got to understand that France has done it's share of damage in the middle east too.

I can understand how you interpreted the oil contracts comment, using a dictionary. It wasn't meant to be such a literal statement, it was implying that France used its position of economic superiority over Iraq to gain further economic advantages. Iraq gave up oil contracts, which were valuable to its economy - and which France got by far the better deal out of (and which by giving up, Iraq actually hurt their own people, by giving the jobs to the French businesses, and not the Iraqi people) in order to satisfy some of the debt, which Iraq owed to France.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 03-09-2003 21:29

Moonshadow, your views are seeming to become more and more one sided, and you seem to be in a great deal of denial over the actions of your government.

I know it's nicer to think that the US is the big evil power, and France is the moral voice of the world, but it simply doesn't hold true.



{{edit - dan got one in while I was typing...}



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-09-2003).]

Moon Shadow
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Rouen, France
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 03-09-2003 22:00

I didn't understood what you meant and I expressed myself surely badly since I didn't meant that. I wasn't thinking of America as evil, the point of my thread was partially to say that none of them (France and USA) were better.

Forgive me. I will try to.. restrain myself now and also to make clearer posts.



[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 03-09-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 03-09-2003).]

Fig
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Houston, TX, USA
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 03-10-2003 00:08

i think dan's point is a very valid one, is france operating in the interests of world peace or more simply in the interests of their economy?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 03-10-2003 00:51

I don't think there is even a question.

Everyone involved is acting strictly in their own nation's economic interests, and nothing more.

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 03-10-2003 01:22
quote:
Everyone involved is acting strictly in their own nation's economic interests, and nothing more.



This is a fact of life, people. It is the basis of all international relations. Why this comes as a surprise to some people is beyond me.

[Edit: I don't know what it is with me and UBB quote tags lately... *sigh*]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 03-10-2003).]

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-10-2003 02:09

Nations would act quite differently if their agendas were purely altruistic. But that has never and will never be the case so we have to ask ourselves what is the next best thing.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 03-10-2003 02:30
quote:
Why this comes as a surprise to some people is beyond me



Exactly. That is why I have been so baffled by Moon Shadow's statements. Most people have agreed that the US is blatantly acting soley in their own self interests. Why people can't accept that everyone else is doing the same is beyond me.



Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 03-10-2003 03:03

Well, MS, the ball appears to be in your court. And, all hedging aside, you did say this:

quote:
France is NOT opposing to USA because this war would maybe increase their profits.



I know it may feel like we're ganging up on you here, but that's not the case. We have come to terms with the fact that nations act only out of self-interest (any perceived altruism may be a bonus, but it is never the reason for action), and we are somewhat mystified by your na&#239;vet&#233;.

In your last post, though, you did say that you thought neither the US or France were the better in this situation. Does that mean we can take the previous post as a momentary slip in reason due to anger? Just wanted to clarify things, because I'm not exactly sure what your opinion is at the moment.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-10-2003 03:15

I want to be clear though about my view of this. While I certainly consider myself a cynic, I do not think all nations act solely out of selfishness. There have been examples where other motives played a significant role.

But as a general rule? Altruism is right out. ~words in bold to be pronounced in your best Monty Python skit frame of mind~

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-10-2003 07:01

Before I quit for the night, I just have to ask one question of you, Moon Shadow. Dan pointed out that

quote:
France has $US40billion+ deals in place to develop the Majnoon and Bin Umar oil fields in Iraq.

You were aware of that, were you not? If so, then can you believe that does not play a huge part in your country's opposition to war? I mean that is a lot of money and if Hussein's regime is removed, the new government will more than likely not want to pay all that money it owes you and the Russians.

Moon Shadow
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Rouen, France
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 03-10-2003 14:05

This time I will try to make an understandable post...

Suho : I agree that USA AND France are mostly acting in order to preserve/increase their benefits... But you are saying that France doesn't want USA to go to war because it would maybe increase their benefits ? I am doubtful. In this case, France would also do everything possible to avoid every country from gaining wealth or benefits. France surely doesn't want USA to go to war in order to protect their benefits, but not because USA would eventually gain from it... If USA want to move a factory into Mexico, does France try to prevent it ? I know the case is not exactly similar, but this is the same type of ideas. The answer is no.

DL : I never said France was not acting like that... In my first post, I said that both were bad to try to convince countries by economic means instead of letting them choose the fate of Iraqi citizens. And Suho, even in the following posts that wasn't my opinion... My post maybe lead you to think that USA were bad, but I never said that France was 'pure' (right now, I begin to really wonder if my post had the meaning I wanted to express... and even more because nobody said something about the mean meaning of my first post...)

Bugimus : No, I wasn't 'clearly' aware of that... I knew Iraq had some economic debt towards us, but I didn't know it was so high. Yes, I agree that may be a good unsaid argument against war in Iraq...

I hope this clarified things a bit since my previous posts seem to not be very clear and confused.



[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 03-10-2003).]

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 03-10-2003 20:16

MS - my first reply deals directly with your first statement =)

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 03-11-2003 01:40

MS: So you're saying that France is not opposing the war just to spite the US? OK, I'll buy that. That would indeed be a foolish thing to do. Sorry if I misunderstood your point. I guess I didn't read closely enough.

Bugs:

quote:
I do not think all nations act solely out of selfishness. There have been examples where other motives played a significant role.



I'm not sure that we disagree, but just to make my thoughts clear, I do believe that all nations act solely out of selfishness, if by that it is meant that the primary motivation for action is perceived benefit to the nation. No matter how significant a role any other motives may play, they are subject to the primary motivation. In other words, an act that brings a perceived benefit (or is perceived to bring a benefit--slightly different nuance) will be carried out, but one that in no way benefits the nation will not be carried out. All other motivations are secondary and contingent on this primary motivation--they will never run counter to the motivation of perceived benefit.

I think the US' behavior underscores this point. Going to war with Iraq has a perceived benefit attached to it, and gaining that benefit is the current goal of the US administration. If they can do it with the support of the UN, those cloaking the endeavor in legitimacy, all the better. Their insistence on going through with the plan even without the support of the UN shows that they perceive this benefit to be extremely valuable. If the Bush administration at some point relents and does not go to war with Iraq, it will not be because of a sudden twinge of conscience, it will be because the perceived damage of undertaking such an action will outweight the perceived benefit.

At the very least we agree that nations never act altruistically. Altruism, by definition, is an act that benefits others but does not benefit (or may even harm) the actor. In accordance with what I've just said, I do not believe that altruism even exists on a national level.

I'm pretty sure that I'm just rehashing what has already been said in these sort of threads, but I don't usually participate in these sort of threads (well, outside of the occasional smart aleck comment), so I thought I'd just spell out my thoughts.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-11-2003 03:18

Yup, that's sounds about right to me.

But maybe someone has some insight on our actions in Somalia after the first Gulf War. It seemed to me that it was about as close to doing the right thing for others than you can get in national affairs. What was the ulterior motive there? Was there one? I'm just not sure because it just seemed like we were trying to clear a path through the war lords so the relief trucks could get to their destinations.

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 03-11-2003 05:44

I figured you might bring up something like that. I won't disagree that that might be the closest we'll get to altruism. The motive there, though, was making the US look better in the eyes of the world (and I'm sure there were other motives I'm not aware of). I'm not ruling out the possibility of genuine compassion, but you can be sure that if there was no perceived benefit (or if that benefit did not outweigh the risks/disadvantages), we would have sat on our hands. The US, in fact, has sat on its hands far more often than it has used those hands to reach out and help. Yeah, Somalia was nice, but what about all the other African nations that were/are in turmoil (Rwanda comes to mind straight off the bat)?

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-11-2003 18:28

Why would C*****n bomb E. European "christians" to save E. European "muslims" and not lift a finger to stop blacks hacking to pieces other blacks in Africa? I think it is because the American people simply don't value the Africans as much as white Europeans. How's that for cynicism? But I do think that is the main reason and since C*****n was governed more by polling data over anything else, he probably felt his hands were tied.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-12-2003 12:44

I would highly recommend this PDF Somalia to understand Somalia and the operations that were performed there and why.

Now, I was somewhat involved in Somalia (informationwise). One must remember what was happening in the US at the time...all those pictures on TV, those starving people. At the same time, we had a presidential race. Somalia became an issue, in that race. So was it 'just' a humanitarian, altruistic action? No, not at all.

And here is a nice link United States Military Operations on all military operations that the US has done, and is doing. Pretty interesting read, actually. Especially the operations done within the US itself.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-12-2003).]

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-12-2003 19:47

The pdf link was very interesting, WS. Thanks for pointing that out. I read through the abstract and the first chapter. It confirms that we had no ulterior motive other than the political clout doing a "good deed" brings to an election. That is as close to altruism as you're going to get in national affairs, IMO. Don't worry, no one is saying Somalia was purely motivated by altruism.

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu