|
06 Jun 08 - 11:34 AM (#2359418) Subject: BS: Should we care about ... From: beardedbruce Everytime I start a "Should we care" thread, it seems like everyone ignores the topic entirely. I begin to feel like Amos in his anti-Bush or pro-Obama threads- Posting everything myself. The obvious use of this power is to terminate discussions that have grown too much here. So, shall I start a "Should we care about the election" thread? Nominations are presently being accepted for other topics. |
|
06 Jun 08 - 11:50 AM (#2359427) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Peace I was gonna start a thread about apathy but I couldn't be arsed. |
|
06 Jun 08 - 02:42 PM (#2359539) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Mrrzy No, thanks! |
|
06 Jun 08 - 03:34 PM (#2359574) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Georgiansilver >>>>>>>So, shall I start a "Should we care about the election" thread?<<<<<<<< I think we should vote on it! |
|
06 Jun 08 - 03:49 PM (#2359582) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Joe Offer Well, the other "should we care" threads are full of copy-pasting, and that isn't the point of a "discussion" forum, any more than bully-trolls and their attempts to bludgeon people with their propaganda. The idea is to say what you think (in a civil manner), and exchange ideas and opinions with others. If you mostly post long articles written by somebody else, people get bored and don't bother reading or responding. The bully-trolls take a different tack - trying to "win" discussions by aggression. Neither approach makes for interesting discussion. People do care about the issues - they just don't want to read all the crap. -Joe- |
|
06 Jun 08 - 03:55 PM (#2359584) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Amos I don't think "should care" is an operational concept. It implies one's own affinities and interests are defined by some moral code. Nothing wrong with adding new perspectives; but caring is an innate thing, to me. A |
|
09 Jun 08 - 07:40 AM (#2361283) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: beardedbruce I post these articles in an attempt to get some intereest in what I consider to be major stories that are ignored, since they cannot be blamed on the Bush Administration. It seems odd that so many here will invest immense amouts of efforts in pushing the majority ( here) viewpoint that Bush is the cause of all evil, yet are so blind to the greater trajedies that occur. Silence imnplies consent- what am I to think of Mudcat's silence on the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and the wholesale removal of rights, while so much is made of the petty political squabbles that are the subject of so many multiple threads? |
|
09 Jun 08 - 07:52 AM (#2361296) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: GUEST,quiet one God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. --Reinhold Niebuhr |
|
09 Jun 08 - 07:57 AM (#2361300) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: beardedbruce And who here can change the Past? |
|
09 Jun 08 - 08:10 AM (#2361307) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: quokka what are the issues you would like raised, Beardedbruce, in your opinion? What are the gut-wrenching things that absolutely infuriate you? I ask not to be inflammatory, but just b. I would really like to know. ( as an outsider) |
|
09 Jun 08 - 08:19 AM (#2361313) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: beardedbruce Why it seems ok for the UN to do nothing in Africa, South America, and Asia, but we are supposed to depend on the UN for issues that affect the survival of the US- Iraq ( where the UN said that Saddam was NOT in compliance with UN resolutions), Iran ( Where the UN has statetd that the nuclear programs are in violation of the NPT) North Korea ( who has still not terminated the WMD programs)... It seems like it is ok for the UN to do nothing, and even block efforts ( by organized groups of nations ) to help- witness Darfur, Burma, Bosnia, Cambodia... Either the UN has the resposibility to act to protect human lives and rights, or the individual nations have that responsibility. |
|
09 Jun 08 - 10:52 AM (#2361431) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Little Hawk That's a worthy thing for you to bring up, BB. What is the U.N. in actuality? Is it what it puports to be, an organization that exists so that all the world's countries can meet amicably together and share their voices and ideas in an equal fashion, and thereby participate democratically in creating a freer and more peaceful and harmonious world? Are its first concerns to establish international justice, enforce international law, and bring about peace and prosperity for all? (Now pause for a rich outpouring of laughter, coughing, and exclamations of hilarity and/or disgust.....!) No. It pretends be all those things listed above. It does at times feebly attempt to be some of those things listed above. It may have been founded with some vague notion of being or doing some of those things listed above, but in truth it is this: It is an instrument of a small group of the world's great powers, namely those on the Security Council, and it has always acted as their instrument. First and foremost it is the instrument of the United States of America and NATO, and it was created from the first with that very purpose in mind. It was located in the midst of American soil in New York City with that purpose in mind. Now, various formalities and various forms of song and dance are engaged in for the purpose of creating the impression that the U.N. is there to fairly represent all nations in an equal manner, but anyone who believes that probably still believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too! Oh, the smaller nations and those outside NATO can certainly sit in the General Assembly and they can talk...and they can express their collective opinion but they can't do anything about it. Only the few on the Security Council can do anything...and they have done so a number of times now...they have initited war on behalf of...of who? Why, of the USA and its principle NATO allies, that's who. The U.N. is a tool of grand American and NATO policy. It was set up for that purpose and it functions to that end. The only impediment that can occur is when several of America's NATO allies get cold feet and decide NOT to join the USA in some action. Then the Security Council will not vote as the USA would like it to. That happened in regards to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A majority of the Security Council did not agree to give U.N. approval to the USA and the UK's attack on Iraq. They had gone a little too far that time, and their friends in the Great Power Elite that runs the Security Council could not stomach it...so they voted against it. Ironically enough, of all the nations in the world the USA is the one most often in default of paying its U.N. dues!!! This perhaps demonstrates the innate contempt that the U.S.A. has for an institution that is, after all, a fraud...little more than a passive tool for the extension of American military/economic power around the globe. The U.N. is a farce. (Same as the Democratic and Republican parties are a farce.) It is a false face that was never intended to be anything but a false face to mislead credulous people. It's like one of those western movie sets, it looks great from the front, but there's nothing real behind the facade (except American/British money and guns). The deck of cards at the U.N. was always stacked decisively in favour of the Western Alliance (NATO) through the Security Council. NATO is the long arm of the USA with its principle Allies. It's simply the continuance of the WWII Western Alliance (USA/UK/France) which first fought the Axis, then geared up to fight the Soviets and Red China. The Communists were always the odd man out at the U.N. and they never had a hope of winning a Security Council vote against the Western Alliance, and they knew it, but they figured it was better to be there and get their chance to shoot their mouths off to the world in general than it would be not to be there at all... I'm sure they were never under any illusions that the U.N. was there to fairly represent the interests of all nations in an impartial fashion!!! Ha! Now there's a laugh and a half. It's an instrument of empire, BB. Such organizations have always been instruments of empire. They are created BY the most powerful, OF the most powerful, and FOR the most powerful of their day...and they serve out that purpose as faithfully as any attack dog serves the handler who holds its leash. Why do they not do something about those desperate situations in Africa you referred to? Because they don't give a damn about that! They have much bigger priorities elsewhere at the moment. It's not about helping humanity, BB. It's not about protecting human lives and rights. It's about enlarging, enriching, and maintaining a huge commercial-military empire. |
|
10 Jun 08 - 11:20 AM (#2362329) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Wolfgang Bearded Bruce, I share your view that too many here only post on political threads if Bush or at least the Western World in general can be blamed. If the blame is obviously with someone with a darker shade of skin they somehow are not interested. Kind of reverse racism in my eyes (though I must admit that I have much more liking in my gut feeling for this new than for the traditional racism). I even pondered about starting a thread about the bushifiability of threads claiming that all but the most unlikely threads can be bushified within the first few posts. The average post to bushify the thread is the sixth in my perception. These posters think that we need to be reminded of global warming if the discussion is about the Burmese government and its inability to deal with a flood or that Bush is a good addition to the theme when we discuss misappropriation of a petty dictator in the third world. Their only contribution to a discussion is the "we too" or "but we" gambit. But what bothers me a lot about your "should we care" threads is that I have the (wrong?) impression that you are more interested to rub these themes under the noses of the "Mudcat Left" than in the actual theme. Why? You invariably choose themes that are unlikely candidates for bushification and that make a left leaning poster uneasy. Where I do not at all agree with you is the wording of the unchanging part of the title and your (mostly only) implicit idea of what could be a good action in these cases. "Should we care" implies that not caring is a viable option (in the eyes of those who do not respond). It isn't. All of your cases are human rights violations or other sufferings which must move any person here. Your idea of action seems to me to be in most of these cases international (or even national?) intervention even without the invitation of the respective government which in many cases would mean armed intervention. I too deplore the inability of the UN to act quickly and strongly. But could lack of immediate action in these cases be equated with not caring? I strongly disagree. Let's take Burma as an example. Burma (Myanmar) is governed by a bunch most people from left to right would like to disappear soon. But would armed intervention be a good idea (even with no strings attached as in some recent cases of armed intervention) that would help the people? I am far from indifferent to the fate of the Burmese people but I think they are better off with a big flood and an ineffective and oppressing government than with an armed interference in addition to a flood. I deplore the fate of the Tibetans in China but I think the idea of an armed intervention would not be in the interest of the world as a whole. I'd love to see Guantanamo closed but in this case too more foreign interference than letters or complaints or starting international law cases also would be a bad idea. Sometimes inaction (with the fist in the pocket) can be better than open interference and should never be confused with lack of caring about. Wolfgang |
|
10 Jun 08 - 11:33 AM (#2362338) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: beardedbruce "You invariably choose themes that are unlikely candidates for bushification and that make a left leaning poster uneasy." True- I see significant events that , if they could be blamed on Bush would have multiple threads and loud cries, but because they cannot are ignored and never even mentioned. Thus the "Should we care...?" It seems to me that the desire for human rights, life, and fairness is ONLY a matter of concern ( to most here) when they can blame the Bush administration for the lack. So much for their concern about life, when only SOME lives seem to matter to them. Point of discussion: When does a government have the right to interfere in the actions of another government, in order to provide relief for natural ( and other ) disasters, and to preserve human life and liberty? |
|
10 Jun 08 - 11:46 AM (#2362349) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Paul Burke The point is that you (Bruce) CAN do something about abuses perpetrated by the USA, and you can't do anything much about injustice in Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc. But you seem to be saying something on the lines of we can't be that bad because there are other bad buggers in the world. Why are you so fixated on exonerating Bush? The USA (and UK) had a go at (let's be generous to them) relieving injustice by military force. It has proved an unmitigated disaster. If we want to do something about Zimbabwe, and we do, we know that the one thing we mustn't do is send a gunboat (or helicopter gunship these days). We've got to work out a way round it. And our motives must be patently clear of imperial and economic ambitions- and it is that oil- black contamination that has discredited both the USA and the UK for a generation to come. |
|
10 Jun 08 - 11:50 AM (#2362355) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: beardedbruce " But you seem to be saying something on the lines of we can't be that bad because there are other bad buggers in the world." NOT what I said- but YOU seem to agree that if the US is NOT at fault, we can ignore it and let people die that could be saved. |
|
11 Jun 08 - 08:48 AM (#2363118) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Wolfgang When does a government have the right to interfere in the actions of another government, in order to provide relief for natural ( and other ) disasters, and to preserve human life and liberty? (BB) The official (UN) response to that question is (I think) "never". My personal response is "extremelyy rarely" and even then I'd much prefer a UN vote (scrap the vetoes in favour of a say 3/4 majority vote) and an international action instead of the action of a single government. In Turkey, wearing a headscarf in government buildings is (now again) forbidden. Would that give say Iraq the right to interfere on the side of religious liberty. Would Germany have the right to attack say Saudi Arabia when a public stoning is scheduled? Such a world would be a dangerous world. I prefer the present one with all its problems, not the least among them standing by in inaction seeing people dying that a better government could have saved. Wolfgang |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:37 PM (#2575049) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: beardedbruce refresh |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:40 PM (#2575057) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: gnu Of course we should. |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:44 PM (#2575060) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Little Hawk Why? |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:48 PM (#2575062) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: curmudgeon Uncle Walter's Recipe for Tantoodulum Tart Go to the pasture after the calves have been weaned and find a couple of ripe smallish cow flaps. Put between them a large toad. Share and enjoy. |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:49 PM (#2575063) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: gnu Because Bruce is gonna refresh every care thread that ever was. Seriously. I kid you not. Check it out. Maybe he is drinking and smoking and popping everything he has before Lent? |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:51 PM (#2575068) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: beardedbruce just trying to fight a false accusation. Is that allowed, or do I have to allow lies about me to be unchallenged? |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:52 PM (#2575069) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: gnu Tom... couldn't have said it better myself! |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:53 PM (#2575071) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Don Firth Frankly, I think Wolfgang has said it quite clearly. Don Firth |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:54 PM (#2575072) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: gnu Bruce... fill yer boots. Just be careful of the patties. |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:56 PM (#2575074) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Should I care about people who post to should we care about... |
|
24 Feb 09 - 05:57 PM (#2575076) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: gnu I agree Don. Not quite the order of the day, though, is it? |
|
24 Feb 09 - 10:00 PM (#2575247) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: michaelr bb asks: "When does a government have the right to interfere in the actions of another government, in order to provide relief for natural ( and other ) disasters, and to preserve human life and liberty?" The answer is the same as it has been: NEVER. No country has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another unless invited to do so. That is why the United Nations were formed. The more relevamnt question is why the UN are so inefficient, and what can be done about that. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 10:36 AM (#2575552) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Donuel We need to preserve the right to "interfere" in many scenarios. No, not the Bush doctrine kind but in the disease and enviormental aspects of global actions. CDC knows this all too well. In my book they preserve our way of life far better than the CIA of any administration. the UN IS "inefficient only to the degree that the US wants the UN to be inefficient. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 10:43 AM (#2575563) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Donuel bbruce At least you are not smoking. It is far easier to file an internet slander suit today. Do you wanna sue your virtual "friends" ? Should we care if... If you feel wronged, take a moment to ask yourself if you could indeed be wrong. You just as all of us are partially wrong on occaision and totally wrong on political issues in which we are most staunch, determined, unyielding, ideological and brain washed. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 07:18 PM (#2576013) Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about ... From: Jeri Bruce. I care, but what I care about is avoiding everything you write. People are not the idiots you think we are. We don't need you to feed us news stories. I don't read anything you post if I can help it, but someone told me about this thread and I figured I could say how I felt. I have a lot of thoughts I believe someone would have to delete if I posted them. Let's just say I'm not going to read your threads and don't want to talk to you at Mudcat or anywhere else. And if you have a personal problem with someone, deal with it personally and please don't share with the rest of us. While it might be as much fun to watch as any steel cage deathmatch for some, it doesn't belong here.. |