Anyone still feel like protesting?

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 31 2003, 03:24 AM
There's a lot of that going around. We're ignoring the United Nations to strengthen the United Nations, and we're waging war to preserve the peace.

Look - I am not defending the folks who are breaking the law in demonstrating. I'm just a little tired of the high-school pep rally mentality of a lot of people on BOTH SIDES.

i am not aware of anyone making the case that the US is ignoring the UN to strengthen the UN. the UN is nothing more than a massive humanitarian organization supported by those countries who do so only when its in their best interests.

it occured to me recently why the UN evolved into nothing more than a massive humanitarian organization - i think its because it just happens that its in every countries interest to either contribute to aiding others. above all things, its just great marketing. its something that makes everyone look good and its not an issue that can cause any serious degree of dissagreement.

the Security Council is where you see more clearly what happens when interests conflict with each other. Peace has nothing to do with anything. The Security Council in my opinion is just a waste of time. even in peace keeping operations they have failed miserably and failed to save hundreds of thousands who have been slaughtered needlessly as they either withdrew peacekeepers or failed to react entirely. Srebrenica was a great example of a "UN Safe Zone" at work. Rowanda provided many horrific examples as well.

I would say PD that "the high school pep rally mentallity" is a great way to characterize peoples behavior who are outspoken on any side. just taking a side and either waving a flag or parading up and down the street with pictures of dead babies is much easier than carefully weighing amazingly complex and complicated issues within their proper historical, cultural, regional, religous, and global/domestic context. its becomes to complicated that in the end, there can be nothing more than "belief" anyway. in the end, some of these questions are just so complex that a decision has to be made at some point and a side has to be taken or a person just has to form a black and white opinion to simplify it all for thier own sanity. this even happens in the strictest of sciences. even advanced mathematics progresses to the point of quasi-philosophy.

i personally believe that many arguments, fears, concerns that are both "for and against" attacking Iraq are equally strong.

but i believe as well that history, as usual, will be the final judge of who was "right and wrong". whether we all want to accept it or not, "right or wrong" cannot be stated as fact - before the outcome has been realized. until that time, its just assumption.

I was taking that political test that colin posted and it occured to me that someone with a truly balanced perspective on any issue, could not by definition "strongly agree" or "strongly dissagree" on anything. we only feel that way because we as humans can convince ourselves that we are 100% correct and others are 100% wrong. that will probably never change. people are deeply flawed by design and doomed to conflict.

in the end, their can only be the surviviors and the defeated. that has not changed in 15,000 years. it will probably not change in the next 15,000 years.