Changes in foreign politics for the next president?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
However, even in a democratic society, a minority may not have an effective say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, American Blacks were not generally proponents of segregation despite its institution by a legally representative democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which was subseqently acknowledged as wrong and removed.

[ QUOTE ]
You did qualify your statement by saying that a “bill of rights type document” should exist to back citizen rights, but this seems to be implying that there are relative goods and bads in state governance that grant a government legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct - note that the bill or rights is not handed down by god/nature. It is also part of the democratic process that invites participation.

[ QUOTE ]
If an international government with a “bill of rights” type document does not have a right to impose force, why then does a police force enjoy that right on a smaller scale?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there's no such thing as an "international government". A government belongs to one nation. A coalition of governments voluntarily agreeing to interact with each other under a pre-determined set of rules is not within the scope of the aggressive action I am advocating against here.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that nations should not just march into countries and depose their government, but that is a pretty far cry from what we have been discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is exactly what I have been discussing and I think to the extent that you disagree it is largely due to my inability to get that across to you.

[ QUOTE ]
We have been discussing the use of force and the international and individual wrong of imposing will upon another for wrongdoing.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Wrongdoing" is a subjective predetermination that the "other side" is in the wrong and it biases you to conclude up front that intervention is justifiable.

[ QUOTE ]
Your last post seems to just posit an Iraq type situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I infer from that you think the Iraq war was not justified? Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
I think but am not sure that you have conceded that sometimes an appropriate and well reasoned use of force, even if it involves killing, is acceptable. Hence, a government's role might need to encompass far more than economic trade.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only claim that violent defense is conceivably "appropriate", but that violent offense is not.

To the extent that a group of countries agree to a certain set of military defense arrangements and then follow through on those arrangments, I would consider that to fall under "economic" trade - what is such an arrangement other than a contract to willfully exchange services for services rather than fees for services? As I noted before, I am afraid that my use of the word "economic" carried too many connotations that may have distorted what I meant. To me, free and voluntary exchange is "economics".

[Jon1000]

Of course it's subjective. You said legitimacy is subjective. Then you stated that your hypothetical nation was democratic by default, and I am trying to demonstrate that its use of force is not very different from a democratic international collective imposing force upon another state. Additionally, if it is not democratic, then the state has no right to use force against its citizens by your rationale?

[ QUOTE ]
Which was subseqently acknowledged as wrong and removed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but between Virginia, the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Movement, it took roughly 400 years. I think your rebuttal highlights the possible need for additional influence to be levereged. As in SA and apartheid.

[ QUOTE ]
Correct - note that the bill or rights is not handed down by god/nature. It is also part of the democratic process that invites participation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not sure where you got this from or when I mentioned God. In fact, I'm pretty sure I keep doing the opposite. I have outlined an international collective using force based upon moral/objective norms that are majority agreed upon. All this implicit teleology of government you have introduced into the argument seems to speak against Iran having the right to stone women for adultery or hang minors for homosexuality, not promote its right to do so under state sovereignty.

[ QUOTE ]
Because there's no such thing as an "international government". A government belongs to one nation. A coalition of governments voluntarily agreeing to interact with each other under a pre-determined set of rules is not within the scope of the aggressive action I am advocating against here.

[/ QUOTE ]

"A government is a body that has the power to make, and the authority to enforce rules and laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group." A comprehensive global government does not exist now, but there are surely parallels to be drawn here.
What do you consider the IMF, World Bank, NATO, NAFTA, etc? Do they have no legitimate power? You would be against the invasion of Nazi Germany on the grounds that the fascists didn't agree to a predetermined rule to be invaded?

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that nations should not just march into countries and depose their government, but that is a pretty far cry from what we have been discussing.

No, it is exactly what I have been discussing and I think to the extent that you disagree it is largely due to my inability to get that across to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wording problem on my part there. I don't think nations should mark in and unilaterally change the status quo with no justification. I DO believe that nations can collectively organize, judge a wrong morally/objectively, and take decisive action. This seems to be the conclusion of my side of the discussion, but in fairness we have been talking about legitimate use of force, government legitimacy, international body legitimacy, inherent superiority of democracy, and a few other issues.

[ QUOTE ]
"Wrongdoing" is a subjective predetermination that the "other side" is in the wrong and it biases you to conclude up front that intervention is justifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrongdoing is subjective. So is legitimacy. International laws based on firm reasoning, like a state's legal system, yet applicable to other nations is subjective. I don't see how it differs form a sovereign nation's legal system and use of force. So subjectively, we can determine that state sponsored genocide is an offense on the international scale and can punish a nation's government for it. But its pretty strange of you to say the subjective law biases our judgement because the genocide is what caused the punishment not some other factor. That's like saying we have this subjective set of laws that we have informed the entire US about, yet when some sicko goes on a serial toddler killing necrophilia binge, we are wrong to punish him because subjective laws bias us against his personal freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
Can I infer from that you think the Iraq war was not justified? Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was against unilateral invasion of Iraq. If there had been international consensus, including Islamic states, I'm still not sure I would be for invasion, but it would at least be legitimate in my eyes.

[ QUOTE ]
I only claim that violent defense is conceivably "appropriate", but that violent offense is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet indirect violent offense is acceptable. Embargos and sanctions that result in indirect poverty and death are fine, just not pulling a trigger? Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
To the extent that a group of countries agree to a certain set of military defense arrangements and then follow through on those arrangments, I would consider that to fall under "economic" trade - what is such an arrangement other than a contract to willfully exchange services for services rather than fees for services? As I noted before, I am afraid that my use of the word "economic" carried too many connotations that may have distorted what I meant. To me, free and voluntary exchange is "economics".

[/ QUOTE ]

I finally understand your use of economic. I think it is my own failing of being unable to reconcile "economic" as a word with the morally charged humanitarian intervention that might result in a country's loss of capital, manpower, and security.

[Jon1000]

To be clear:

I think the US has some responsibility to use its military and economic superiority in international relations in cases where there is compelling internationally agreed upon need for human protection. If preventative diplomacy and economic influences fail, and when a state government does not have the capacity or the desire to do anything, then intervention might be necessary. Extreme cases may require the military to kill people and rearrange or remove governments.

I'm still trying to decide when "offensive violence" on a large military scale is defensible but do believe preventing genocide to be defensible. You seem to oppose any military intervention which the state being intervened in hasn't explicitly allowed. This seems wrong to me.

Can you please post some sort of context that helps me to understand your position? As I understand it right now, offensive military action is unjustifiable to you, regardless of any offense a state has committed or of any international treaty it has signed submitting itself to punishment if it leaves the treaty before it is punished. You believe in fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens by a democratic nation. You believe those rights are not subjective. You may or may not believe in fundamental rights being denied to citizens by an authoritarian state. You believe all citizens voluntarily accept all government laws and punishments. You believe that if a nation does not voluntarily accept internationally agreed upon norms, then it is exempt from them, including genocide.

[kidpokeher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6M8iudsVN4

[Jon1000]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6M8iudsVN4

[/ QUOTE ]

entertaining, but it seems to lack any evidence or historical context. My objections are still similar to my objections to mos' statements. They break down when you apply them to concrete examples of intervention.