Attack on the DPRK: Iraq War PR?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Guilt by association eh?

Voluntary association, so, yes.

If my government does something that is reprehensible, I can not stop it.

You are your government. Though, in the case of Australia, I grant that this is debateable (it could be argued that the powers of your State are derived from the Monarch and simply allowed to be exercised by the people). However, in the case of a Democratic-Republic--it is very clear that the Sovereignty of the State is collective. You chose to participate in the State, and you hold part of the sovereignty and the sovereign powers--with them, the responsibilities.

I can vote against it in the next election and vote for a government that will rectify the situation.

Yes, but how can you vote in the first place? Because you are in a system where power is devolved to the people, that's how. The power of war and peace, among them. You are simply choosing people to exercise the power you possess for you. It is still your power--and your responsibility. Captains go to jail for things the crewmen on their ships do. Our elected officials are called Civil Servants for a very specific reason.

But you cannot punish a nation for the actions of a few people who gave the orders to do something because those people commited no crime, indeed they had no part in the makng of a criminal offence, it is illogical to punish the many for the actions of the few.

But those people were selected by the people--who are the government--according to the legal system accepted by the people, in a system in which the people Are the State and make the State decisions via the process of the selection of representative civil servants. The responsibility still rests on the people as a whole--we're the ones who allow the system to exist, support it, and apportion our powers according to this central concept. The legal concepts simply are a method for choosing the servants who represent us in the management of our State's operation.

Should I hold the entire people of America responcible for the people that Bush had executed in Texas?

No, but you should absolutely hold the whole population of Texas so responsible.

The details, however is what make you criminal or not.

Yes, but we're not discussing law, here, we're discussing morality.

The essence of democracy is its freedoms and the ability of a people to peaceably change its government should it displease them.

No, the essence of democracy is that the State's people are sovereign as a whole instead of a single individual. That is democracy--the devolution of power from a monarch to the whole of the populace. You don't change your government in democracy because you are the government.

But it is the government who is made of individuals who give the orders, and with that power comes the responsibility of success or failure, reward or punishment, and it is in these details that the people give government the responibility for its actions.

These are simply the civil servants of the government, which is the people, who have the sovereign powers of the whole state.

People may elect, but it is Government that must deside and it is that very power to deside that imparts responcibility for a nations actions to that government.

Again, the government in the democratic (or more precisely democratic-republican) system is the whole populace. I grant that the modern constitutional monarchy creates an interesting and unique situation. The government as the people does indeed decide everything--through a legally established method of choosing civil servants. But the legal quibbles are not the important part. We are discussing morality and the morality is clear; the people are the government and the people participate in a system which selects the leaders who exercise their sovereign rights, including the rights of War and Peace.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
Again, the government in the democratic (or more precisely democratic-republican) system is the whole populace. I grant that the modern constitutional monarchy creates an interesting and unique situation. The government as the people does indeed decide everything--through a legally established method of choosing civil servants. But the legal quibbles are not the important part. We are discussing morality and the morality is clear; the people are the government and the people participate in a system which selects the leaders who exercise their sovereign rights, including the rights of War and Peace.

First of, I am a New Zealander. Second, the monarchical Westminster system is a republic with the facade of Monarchy {to quote Baghot} to a large degree.

The legal quibles are what matters, for those legal matters determine the choices that are made in government by those elected few. Those elected are the ones who make desisions, not the people. The people grant those pwers to thier representatives because that is the only practical way of governing the nation in a changing situation. The oppertunity cost of that power to choice is the reponsibility of your choices. To say the the government is the people is a nonsence when it is demonstably not true.
If the Crown improsons me wrongfully it is the Crown that is wrong, not the people for they had no input into the prosses that imprisoned me. Which is why you cannot condemn by association.
When discussing Morality you invaribly discuss law for the two are intermingled, which is one reason why I would not condemn the USA for Bush's action as Govenor of Texas even though Texas is part of the USA.

Your reasoning is a black and white fallacy, Marina, there are far to many issue to just claim the people as government and being responsible as a colective whole for the actions of a few. Infact, to claim as you do would and could be regarded as essentialy immoral.

{BTW, I see your definistion of Democracy is differnt to mine, I put this down to our nations of origin.}

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I apologize for that gaff, which I realize is in fact highly insulting. I was, however, quite distracted at the time and have not had much sleep (considering how little I get to begin with that means something I think). Speaking of which....

I'll reply on the points of the debate tommorow; for now, I offer my mea culpas on calling you an Australian.

[Omega-13]

Were we to attack North Korea, do you think that we would get the same international reaction to an attack on Iraq? I, personally, say that we wouldn't. It is common knowledge that NK is developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and is, in general, a destabalizing factor in SE Asia.

So, would you support a attack on North Korea?

And you call me a moron?
It used to called the great american dream, i'm starting to think its the great american bubble.

I'm sure its great to look up at your flag and think "wow we really kick ass, we can spend 100 billion dollars going to war with a country that struggles to get running water to 50% of its population, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and then try to make it right by saying we will defend freedom at whatever the cost"

If america ever wanted to attack NK, it would get in more shit than it ever did for Iraq,
1 mistake is bad, 2 mistakes is worse.

[Nathan F]

Were we to attack North Korea, do you think that we would get the same international reaction to an attack on Iraq? I, personally, say that we wouldn't. It is common knowledge that NK is developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and is, in general, a destabalizing factor in SE Asia.

So, would you support a attack on North Korea?

And you call me a moron?
It used to called the great american dream, i'm starting to think its the great american bubble.

I'm sure its great to look up at your flag and think "wow we really kick ass, we can spend 100 billion dollars going to war with a country that struggles to get running water to 50% of its population, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and then try to make it right by saying we will defend freedom at whatever the cost"

If america ever wanted to attack NK, it would get in more shit than it ever did for Iraq,
1 mistake is bad, 2 mistakes is worse.

STFU asshat. My post had nothing to do with either advocating or being against a war with North Korea, moron. I said that we wouldn't get the same PR around the world with an attack on the DPRK. I don't think we should go in guns blazing right now. However, like it has been said, if we saw them fueling missiles, then I would say strike them fast and strike them hard.

You just keep on earning that VI, don't you?

[Stuart Mackey]

I apologize for that gaff, which I realize is in fact highly insulting. I was, however, quite distracted at the time and have not had much sleep (considering how little I get to begin with that means something I think). Speaking of which....

I'll reply on the points of the debate tommorow; for now, I offer my mea culpas on calling you an Australian.

hehehe, well its not so much insulting {except during a rugby match} as amusing. NZ and Aussie have a interesting relationship..we insult the crap out of each other..yet an attack on one is an attack on the other.

Apology accepted Marina