Rogue states.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:38 pm

In the wake of recent events, there has been increasing talk of the danger of rogue states.
There have been many nations pointed out too as "rogue" but this one is by far the worst.
It is one of two countries who has refused to sign the international rights of the child in the UN, the most quickly passed charter in HISTORY. It has withdrawn from numerous environmental and political treaties, has broken the linch pin of the lock on nuclear war, has drawn the world into good and evil, and rekindled the flame of war across the globe.
North Korea?
China?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?

Nope. The United States of America. The worlds super power of super powers, in so much, a mega power. There is no single nation that can oppose it economically or militarily, or any likely combination of nations that could.
It has withdrawn from the Kyoto accords, primarily because it is the No. 1 producer of green house gases, and would feel the pinch strongest.
The Right of the child ensures health care and primary education for all children. The US did not accept because it limited their control within the country. Similiar response to the international court developed by the UN to deal with war crimes. Why? Because the US would have its people responsible to someone other than itself.
However, in my opinion, the most blantently overt act of "we will do what we feel like" is the development of the anti ballistic missile program. The treaty signed 25 years ago between the nuclear powers and the world, stated that there could be no defense against nuclear missiles. The reason behind this is that if you started the war, you would die too. The US will soon be impervious to everything.
The United States, led by Dubyah, has developed a new, hardline unilateralist paradigm of the world, where you are with us, or you are against us.
These are the actions of a rogue state. One nation whos power is unquestioned, and can get away with anything.
Does anyone else think this will end badly?

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 11:29 pm

To reply or not to reply (drat I did).

@Obsidian, As this is largely a US based forum I don't see you getting a very positive response to labelling the US a rogue state.

The USA has reached the current position it occupies by utilizing Macro-economics, globalisation is the next step of this and may actually see the USA become less directly important.

Rather than slam the vocal yokels from George Dubya's camp (they ain't listening) why not try to find a way to effectively oppose the spread of capitalist culture? I'm out of suggestions here but it beats banging your head against it.

Or just duck and cover

- Curdis !

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 12:54 am

To flame or not to flame...

Originally posted by Obsidian
The treaty signed 25 years ago between the nuclear powers and the world, stated that there could be no defense against nuclear missiles. The reason behind this is that if you started the war, you would die too. The US will soon be impervious to everything.

(CP) "Sir the shield is up"
(GWB)"Take Canada out then Powell!!"
(CP)" Sir, yes sir"

(Pause for quick flash...no one notices)

(GWB)"Finally!!. Tomorrow will look to Mexico Powell"

CM · Post by CM » Fri Mar 22, 2002 3:03 am

Ob you are on your own.
A bit of friendly advice, this is a gaming forum, lets not mess it up with politics.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 7:13 am

As the most powerful nation on the Earth, we set the standard for morality, through force if leading by example doesn't work (or isn't convenient).

We get to decide which behaviours are "deviant" and get to label other states as "rogues". The beauty of it is that no one can stop us.

I think that you have to remember (and I've said this before) that all nations act in their own best interests before they act in anyone else's. If you look at the history of the United States, we have always placed expediency ahead of righteousness, and recent history is no exception.

Your example of the ballistic missile defense system isn't really an attempt to shield the US from a foreign ballistic missile threat; there is no nation on the earth with either the means or the will to deliver a ballistic nuclear missile attack on the US. The BMDS is a chance for Dubya and **** Cheney to line the pockets of their military-industrial complex buddies with lots of cash. It's illegal and unnecessary, yet Dubya still wants to build it. Why? Because he has lots of friends who work for Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and other government contractors who are going to get sizeable defense contracts to build a system the world doesn't need. It's not about national security; it's about greed and sinecure.

One the flip side of this (so this doesn't become a "bash the US" thread"), the United States does more good in the world than anyone else, even for people we claim not to like. When there were earthquakes in Soviet Georgia in the late 80s, who were the first disaster professional disaster recover teams on the scene? Americans. When a dam in China burst and tens of thousands of people were killed (early 90s, I believe), who sent more relief workers and supplies than the rest of the world combined? The United States. We send more missionaries abroad than any other country, and last year we donated over $200 billion to various charities (that's about $1 in every $50 of the GDP that went to a charity).

Dubya will be gone in two years (unless the economy really picks up), but the United States will remain. I think the difference between him and some of our past presidents is that while our overall policy hasn't changed, he just says things that nobody else has had the balls to say before. Plus, he doesn't care how abrasive he sounds; if you don't like it, he'll just park two carrier battlegroups off your coast until you come around.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 9:07 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Dubya will be gone in two years (unless the economy really picks up), but the United States will remain. I think the difference between him and some of our past presidents is that while our overall policy hasn't changed, he just says things that nobody else has had the balls to say before. Plus, he doesn't care how abrasive he sounds; if you don't like it, he'll just park two carrier battlegroups off your coast until you come around.

Admirably put, though I have to disagree with the remark about the differences being non-existent between Dubyah and his predecessors. Dubyah has, IMO, a fundamentally different outlook about the nature of the office. He doesn't see the presidency as being beholden to anybody outside his core constituency--which he hopes to extend, so as to win another four years in office. The rest of the world, as far as he can see, exists only in so far as it positively or negatively impacts American economic/military interests: period.

As a result, he has rescinded more global and international agreements than any other president who preceded him. Only the tip of the iceberg is ever reported on the news, because many of the pacts and agreements he abrogated are arcane in effect and explanation. Even so, the big ones that he's dropped, like the missile treaty with the Russians, are more than reason enough for the world (including Americans) to feel great cause for concern.

I don't believe Dubyah is insincere, not at the core. He's a product of the Texan political system, which means that if he lies blatantly about his expectations (as he did when he formulated a demand for the return of a pair of American missionaries from the Taliban, alongside the bin Ladan demand), it's only because he's very sincere about keeping his "people" happy. He cannot see beyond that relationship, so basic to demos. He is representative of democracy at its most pragmatic and tragically incapable.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Fri Mar 22, 2002 9:56 am

Does sending missionaries out into the world really count as "good"?

My friend Alex has a lot of Bush-bashing material. I'll post it when I get the chance.

Am little bit stoned right now. Later.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:13 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Does sending missionaries out into the world really count as "good"?.

Ultimately, it depends on whether you feel the proselytization is good for spreading the gospel of one's religion, or if you feel that it is pushing religion on people who don't want it.

Regardless of their religious motivations, almost all missionaries of any denomination are basically good people. They believe they are called to go abroad and serve their fellow men (and bring converts into the fold). Not only do they build churches, they build schools, public works, recreation facilities and all sorts of other things to raise the quality of life. Missionaries do have a religious agenda, but many also have a social agenda as well.

If you want to go outside of missionaries, name five other countries that have a government-sponsored program like the Peace Corps, and name one country who sends more people abroad for projects like the Peace Corps than the United States. I'll still bet that the US is first in helping people overseas.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:24 am

Let me get this straight: you view the US as a rogue state because it won't sign on the UN child agreement and Kyoto?

OK, since no one else wants to be put in the position of *gasp* defending the US, I'll have a go at it.

First, the children. Think of the children!

If, as you say, this agreement states that the state is responsible for the health and education of all children, I for one am against it. I can direct you to a number of threads in which I argue at great length against statism of all sorts, and this UN agreement is nothing more than another attempt to involve the state more and more in the lives of private citizens. By demanding that the state be responsible for the health and education of children, you have taken the responsibility for children away from parents and put it on strangers. My question to you is: why? Why should George Bush (God forbid!!) be the man to care for and educate my child? Why should my next door neighbor pay more taxes, so that my child can get free health care? This is statism. Maybe the rest of the world is wallowing in that philosophy, but I hope that the US has the sense to steer clear of it.

As for Kyoto: hmmmm. I really don't want to get into a debate on the subject of global warming (which I do not believe is occuring due to human intervention in the environment), but I will say this: I think the Europeans (and others) were quite happy when the US backed out of Kyoto, since it gave them the freedom to do nothing themselves. (And still claim moral superiority to the US.) After Kyoto, you know, came Bonn. Did Bonn accomplish anything? Check here for one viewpoint.

And the US as unilateral: so? Personally, I find Bush far too willing to deal with nations I find morally repugnant, and think he should be a good deal more unilateral in his outlook. Unilateral and moral, I should say. As long as the US acts in a moral manner in foreign affairs, we cannot be derided for our unilateral stand. Unfortunately, every President in my (admitedly short) memory has had an absolutely, completely pragmatic outlook in foreign policy: kowtow to everybody who has an ounce of strength, and muddle about with those that don't. It's really quite sickening. The solution is NOT, however, submission to the UN or any other multi-national organization.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:25 am

Originally posted by HLD
Not only do they build churches, they build schools, public works, recreation facilities and all sorts of other things to raise the quality of life. Missionaries do have a religious agenda, but many also have a social agenda as well.

Touche.

Why should George Bush (God forbid!!) be the man to care for and educate my child?

Good point. If I was a parent, I wouldn't want Bush looking after my kids.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:32 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Does sending missionaries out into the world really count as "good"?

Having lived in Central America, which has suffered a lot at the hands of US policies there, I have a big bone to pick with the missionaries that go down there. Right now the area is crawling with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
In Guatemala, one of the things that the Mayans fought and died for was education (in their own language) for their children. The government was not providing beyond a 2nd grade education. The town I used to live in now has a big school which was built by Christian fundamentalist missionaries. All the Mayans in the town have been converted. What's the big deal? Three things: 1) The school would not have been built had they not converted--good will or sheer bribery? 2) The Mayans were victims of President Rios Montt's scorched earth policy in the 80's (backed by the CIA). Rios Montt was a fundamentalist Christian who had an agenda of converting the Mayans from Catholicism. Besides the obvious reasons for converting the Mayans (evangelicism), the military dictatorship benefited from conversion because they wanted to undermine Catholic priests who had become politically involved in helping to better the conditions of the indigenous. (liberation theology) Under Rios Montt, this was forced conversion. The little town next to the one I lived in had a bunch of indians massacred in 1990 along with the American Catholic priest right in front of the Catholic church. 3) These missionaries have no respect for or interest in the Mayan traditions of these people, which have somehow survived for 500 years despite the Inquisition, etc. Ironically, the Catholic church allowed Mayan tradition to partially survive, since it incorporated a lot of their beliefs into Catholicism. Protestant religions are not so all-inclusive. The Mayan tradition is something I really don't want to see die out (although I predict that their biggest threat is American TV).

So I do not include missionary relief efforts as a good thing the USA does.

From my own experiences down there, I'm not too impressed with US relief efforts in general. Central America is full of public works projects to provide infrastructure, for example, projects to provide access to water. They always have a huge sign in front of the project that states what the project is, who's building it, and who's funding it. I never saw one sign that stated anything was being built with US funds. I saw numerous signs that showed other countries, esp. the UN, Canada, Holland, Denmark, etc., helping out down there. The only thing I ever did see that the US gave to them was lots and lots and lots of weapons. US aid=weapons.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:57 am

Originally posted by VoodooDali

Having lived in Central America, which has suffered a lot at the hands of US policies there, I have a big bone to pick with the missionaries that go down there. Right now the area is crawling with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
In Guatemala, one of the things that the Mayans fought and died for was education (in their own language) for their children. The government was not providing beyond a 2nd grade education. The town I used to live in now has a big school which was built by Christian fundamentalist missionaries. All the Mayans in the town have been converted. What's the big deal? Three things: 1) The school would not have been built had they not converted--good will or sheer bribery? 2) The Mayans were victims of President Rios Montt's scorched earth policy in the 80's (backed by the CIA). Rios Montt was a fundamentalist Christian who had an agenda of converting the Mayans from Catholicism. Besides the obvious reasons for converting the Mayans (evangelicism), the military dictatorship benefited from conversion because they wanted to undermine Catholic priests who had become politically involved in helping to better the conditions of the indigenous. (liberation theology) Under Rios Montt, this was forced conversion. The little town next to the one I lived in had a bunch of indians massacred in 1990 along with the American Catholic priest right in front of the Catholic church. 3) These missionaries have no respect for or interest in the Mayan traditions of these people, which have somehow survived for 500 years despite the Inquisition, etc. Ironically, the Catholic church allowed Mayan tradition to partially survive, since it incorporated a lot of their beliefs into Catholicism. Protestant religions are not so all-inclusive. The Mayan tradition is something I really don't want to see die out (although I predict that their biggest threat is American TV).

So I do not include missionary relief efforts as a good thing the USA does.

From my own experiences down there, I'm not too impressed with US relief efforts in general. Central America is full of public works projects to provide infrastructure, for example, projects to provide access to water. They always have a huge sign in front of the project that states what the project is, who's building it, and who's funding it. I never saw one sign that stated anything was being built with US funds. I saw numerous signs that showed other countries, esp. the UN, Canada, Holland, Denmark, etc., helping out down there. The only thing I ever did see that the US gave to them was lots and lots and lots of weapons. US aid=weapons.

I will not try to dispute what has happened in Central America. However, I will comment that, just because it happened that way there does not mean that is how it is in other places. Remember, Bin Laden is not the only radical religious person.

I have two friends who were missionaries in Guatemala a few years ago. They're protestants and part of the CMA(Christian Motorcyclists Association). They're good friends of me and my 'rents and I know that they went to Guatemala with the right purpose and no other agenda than to spread the Gospel. A missionary's job is not to force the people to believe. It is to spread the Gospel of Christ and help the people in the hopes that they might convert, but continue to help them even if they don't convert.

I am saddened, though sadly not surprised, to hear that there are missionaries who try to use force to get converts.

Timekeeper · Post by **Timekeeper** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:17 am

[politics]

Prof. Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States. Read it for all the grisly details. This book consolidated a lot of years feeling shameful that I was American.

You know Bush is simply catering to the power-mongerers in corporations and countries which are "anti-terrorist" (like they were anti-Commie during the cold war). As long as a nation claims it's fighting terrorism, they have Bush's nod.

Why didn't we kill Saddam during the Gulf War? We very well could have, but Bush the Elder needed an Iraq which still could balance against Iran. Notice that we didn't care if Saddam killed the Kurds; we were simply protecting our precious oil supplies in Kuwait.

[/politics]

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:37 am

By HLD:

As the most powerful nation on the Earth, we set the standard for morality, through force if leading by example doesn't work (or isn't convenient).

We get to decide which behaviours are "deviant" and get to label other states as "rogues". The beauty of it is that no one can stop us.

There is a great diference beetween USA and Rome. Don't you think you exagerate a little?

By Lazarus:

First, the children. Think of the children! If, as you say, this agreement states that the state is responsible for the health and education of all children, I for one am against it. I can direct you to a number of threads in which I argue at great length against statism of all sorts, and this UN agreement is nothing more than another attempt to involve the state more and more in the lives of private citizens. By demanding that the state be responsible for the health and education of children, you have taken the responsibility for children away from parents and put it on strangers. My question to you is: why? Why should George Bush (God forbid!!) be the man to care for and educate my child? Why should my next door neighbor pay more taxes, so that my child can get free health care? This is statism. Maybe the rest of the world is wallowing in that philosophy, but I hope that the US has the sense to steer clear of it.

Of course the Leviathan must take care of the heath and education of his childrens. I don't understand your ultra-liberalism(almost near to anarquism). If Bush start a inconsequent war( hypotetical example), cerntanly you and your child will sufer. Any action the State do will react over our lives, your job, heath, and so on... .Remember you put power in the State hands and legitimate it. How can you ligitimate an private iniciative? There is no way. Who else will protect you and give you coditions for live? No one have legitimity to do this, only the State. Otherwise we will back to the insecurity of the nature state.
If someone don't have money to pay his children colege and university, the State must take care of it(especially because the child cannot be responsable of his fathers "limitation".). BTW pay tax for education and heath is a great example of cidadany, somethig to do with pleasure. I think you are not balancing well the importance of these tax. Education and heath(especially with childrens) are something to priorize over others consumism needs and individual gains.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 2:20 pm

Hello Ivan!

@Delacroix: I don't want to get too far back into our old conversations (this is getting a bit off-topic), but...

I like the moniker "ultra-liberal,"

but "anarchist" is indeed going too far. I believe that government is necessary, and I do recognize that to have a government, the citizens must agree to give up certain powers to that government. The government is responsible for the protection of it's citizens (both from foreign threat, and from internal conflict (police, courts, etc)), but it is NOT responsible for the well-being of each individual citizen. It is not George Bush's responsibility to see that I have a job and a place to live and proper health care - that is my task as a human being.

Again, you and I have been through this issue ... I am happy to discuss further, but this thread may not be the place for it.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:24 pm

First, let me say I dislike the very concept "rouge state" since it has become a simple label to demonise a state or a political system.

Originally posted by Lazarus
As for Kyoto: hmmmm. I really don't want to get into a debate on the subject of global warming (which I do not believe is occuring due to human intervention in the environment), but I will say this: I think the Europeans (and others) were quite happy when the US backed out of Kyoto, since it gave them the freedom to do nothing themselves.

I think nobody was happy that the US backed out of the Kyoto protocol. And if the EU was happy that the US backed out, how come the EU has now ratifyied the protocol without the US, with the original decrease in greenhouse gas emission? Even the Greenpeace called it a historical benchmark

Your link is from August last year, so the ideas that writer express seems inconstistent with hindsight.

Anyway, your conclusion that global warming caused by human intervention is not occuring, surprises me Please Lazarus, would you like to expand on this viewpoint?

I suppose you think the international panel IPCC is suspicios since it was established on UN initiative? Do you also think that the American panel that the Bush administration asked for a new report, is suspicious?

The Bush administration asked the National Academy of Sciences to make it's own report. You know they came to same conclusion as the IPCC?

Quote from BBC:

The panel of 11 scientists produced its 24-page report in less than a month.
One scientist who reviewed a draft of the report for the academy told The New York Times newspaper that the White House should not be surprised at the speed or the conclusions of the report.
"They asked a string of questions that might have been appropriate in 1990," the unnamed scientist said.
"Where have you been the last decade?" he asked the administration.

Have you read this report by your own National Research council? If not, it's here:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068916/html/

And their press release:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news. ... enDocument

And a FAQ from your country's National Climate data center:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

So Lazarus, as you understand, I'd be very interested to hear your arguments that global warming is not connected to human activities?

From CNN:

President Bush has re-entered the global warming debate by unveiling his alternative to the 1997 Kyoto agreement on global warming. His plan offers incentives to businesses to voluntarily reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 4.5 percent over 10 years and to reduce power plant emissions.
Bush's plan is dramatically lower than the estimated 33 percent mandatory reduction sought by the Kyoto agreement for the United States, the world's largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions.
Asian and European nations have strongly criticized Bush's decision in 2001 to abandon the Kyoto treaty, which commits 37 industrialized nations to cut gas emissions. Bush has criticized the treaty, saying it set unrealistic goals and could damage the U.S. economy. But other nations worry about scientific concerns that climate change could lead to severe floods and droughts, rising sea levels and an increase in malaria and respiratory disease.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 8:18 am

Re: Hello Ivan!

Hi Lazarus,

Originally posted by Lazarus
[...] but it is NOT responsible for the well-being of each individual citizen. It is not George Bush's responsibility to see that I have a job and a place to live and proper health care - that is my task as a human being.

You can't imagine(I also cannot imagine totally, since I never feel this in my skin) how dificult is to have a job and a place to live(responsability of the human being only, as you say) if there is no job, if they don't want you to get a job, if you are redundant. Redundant for the neo-liberalism. How dificult is to be a "human being" if you do not born with education and heath.

The first thing I thought was, maybe Lazarus live in a context (country, neiborhood, method of education,...) diferent of mine, this will explain the conflitant ideas. But is not the context (maybe the context have little little influences); I has reading an text of a sociologist about pos-modernity, based on USA(not only), and the rality he expose is in fact very near my reality(not my opinions about it). If you have the oprtunity to read these book, run for it, it is one of my favorites, the Autor is also one of the bests( if is not the best in modernity).
Zygmunt Bauman - Postmodernity and its Discontents(reference of Freüd) - 1997- Polity Press(England).

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 10:00 am

Topic = US as rogue state

@C Elegans: Global warming is off-topic here. I am preparing a PM for you, which you should have within the hour.

Originally posted by Delacroix
Hi Lazarus,

You can't imagine(I also cannot imagine totally, since I never feel this in my skin) how dificult is to have a job and a place to live(responsability of the human being only, as you say) if there is no job, if they don't want you to get a job, if you are redundant. Redundant for the neo-liberalism. How dificult is to be a "human being" if you do not born with education and heath.

The first thing I thought was, maybe Lazarus live in a context (country, neiborhood, method of education,...) diferent of mine, this will explain the conflitant ideas. But is not the context (maybe the context have little little influences); I has reading an text of a sociologist about pos-modernity, based on USA(not only), and the rality he expose is in fact very near my reality(not my opinions about it). If you have the oprtunity to read these book, run for it, it is one of my favorites, the Autor is also one of the bests( if is not the best in modernity).
Zygmunt Bauman - Postmodernity and its Discontents(reference of Freüd) - 1997- Polity Press(England).

@Delacroix: you are correct to guess that I cannot imagine being without a job, or where I am "redundant," or where "they" do not want me to have a job (though I do not understand who "they" are, or why "they" should want to keep me from employment - ?). I have always had a job, and I have always had to work to support myself. This, in my opinion, is how people should live.

Again, I believe we are getting off-topic, and can only say that if you wish a fuller discussion of this particular subject, you start a new thread or PM me. I will respond.

EDIT: Only to make my original remark to CE more visible.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 11:37 am

Originally posted by Lazarus

Again, I believe we are getting off-topic, and can only say that if you wish a fuller discussion of this particular subject, you start a new thread or PM me. I will respond.

Someone please start a new thread about this..I want to see where it leads to.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 11:43 am

Originally posted by Weasel
Someone please start a new thread about this..I want to see where it leads to.

Weasel - ?! I did not think you were interested in political discussions here in SYM? (Besides running for President, of course.

)

Oh, uh, just so this post is not spam: IMO the US is not a rogue state. So there.