<p>You applied and were rejected from one of the academies?</p>
<p>Why are you going to Uganda?</p>
<p>Afganistan was bombed all over, it was one of the poorest country to begin with, now 75% of their hospitals do not even have electricity. What kind of medical care can we talk about?
When it comes to Iraq- imagine the situation was reverse and it is Iraque people who came to US and tried to tell us / with weapons in hands/ how to behave and how to vote...etc What would be your reaction?
Recruiters who are doing their job got caught in between rock and hard place- there is public protest of war and there is need to recruit. There are also plenty of students with huge student loans who got in over their head trying to go to their dream school...</p>
<p>First of all lindalana, I'm not exactly sure what this had to do with what we were talking about - well the first part at least. Afganistan was a legitamate target - the Taliban was a hotbed of terrorism. Iraq was a mistake - it was the wrong target. We should have gone after Iran - they are an infinitely greater threat then Iraq was. Unfortunately, Bush has some sort of backdoor agreement with them over oil. In any case, having Saddam out of power is obviously a nice side effect. But I digress...</p>
<p>The University of Chicago is a private school - if they allowed recruiters in, then they have every right to stop any protesting if they are harassing their guests. I personally think that arresting them might have been extreme - I don't know the whole situation - it could be that they wouldn't disperse peacefully. If the protestors want to protest to someone it should be the administration, since they were the ones who allowed the "horrible recruiters" to recruit there in the first place.</p>
<p>They were initially asked to leave. They were only arrested after the refused to leave and continued to be a disruption.</p>
<p>Which was what I thought. Maybe they wanted to get arrested - to seem as if they were martyrs or pariahs to their communist cronies. Maybe they wanted the media attention - who knows. Either way they got what was coming to them.</p>
<p>I'm not a citizen and therefore I cannot attend any of them.</p>
<p>And I'll be in Uganda to do volunteer work with the U.N. this summer. I'm really looking forward to it.</p>
<p>What the US doesn't seem to understand is that differing societys exist in the world. We should do things that are conducive to changes in what we perceive as immoral societys, yet direct involvement is not right if we're going to make exceptions. My point is, sure women are being treated unfairly in the taliban regime, yet women are also being treated unfairly in Sudan where a large population of them are being raped by soldiers and militias. If I'm not mistaken, the same is going on in Uganda. If the US wants to be a global policeman, then i support it. Yet, I don't think exceptions should be made for places where it has political and economical motives. </p>
<p>Don't even try to dispute that claim, as I've got one thing to say beyond oil and it goes something along the lines of, oh i don't know, Haliburton perhaps?</p>
<p>I do have to say that comparing recruiters to Nazis is ridiculous. Some students do not know the boundary's that exist, and it makes them appear completely ignorant. I volunteer as a firefighter, and some of the guys like the armed forces and have enlisted. While the majority of UChicago students will probably not join the army/navy/marines/airforce/whatever, a small % might consider it. If they have the brains to get into the University of Chicago, then they have the brains to make their decisions for themselves. These protestors have no right to completely ignore all forms of authority for their own convenience. And their bringing Nazism into this is almost as bad as the Iranian government claiming that the holocast never happened.</p>
<p>While i hate the arguement that the soldiers are fighting for our freedom abroad, the recruiters have a right to do their jobs without these students getting in their way. I'm just suprised that they think that their peers don't have the brains to make their own decisions.</p>
<p>Well first of all I love how you tried to intimidate me there - "don't even try to dispute the claim." You must have a weak argument.</p>
<p>To start with, the United States doesn't have any obligation to take out dictatorships or theocracies or any other statist regime unless it is threatening it's self interest. It <em>does</em> have the moral right to take them out - if and when it chooses to. How many wars do you think the US can fight at once anyway? As I've said before - Iraq was probably the wrong target. I am not a Bush supporter - but let's look at this historically. Why does the United States and the rest of the world have a dependency on oil from the Middle East? Because instead of exploiting it ourselves by buying the land where oil was discovered, we taught Iraqis and Iranians and other Arab countries to exploit it for themselves - and gave crazy religious zealots a direct lever into our economy. Before that oil was incomprehenisble to them - they viewed it is little more than some slimy black liquid.</p>
<p>Is there shady back door dealing going on with Haliburton and government bids? - possibly. Is having Haliburton in control of some portion Iraqi oil better than having it controlled by a dictator - must certainly. Should the US be a global policeman? Probably not. Does it have the right to be? Absolutely. Only its should be on it's terms, not the UN's or any external influence except for the American people, and in the service of its best interests.</p>
<p>Edit: What country are you from, out of curiosity?</p>
<p>"Should the US be a global policeman? Probably not. Does it have the right to be? Absolutely. Only its should be on it's terms, not the UN's or any external influence except for the American people, and in the service of its best interests."</p>
<p>-I generally agree with you, however, I think it's foolish to say that our actions oversea could be- or should be- free from external influence. Every aspect of the U.S. is influenced by the global community, and vice versa. As such it is essential that we act in partnership with our allies- a lack of cooperation decreases both the effectiveness and legitimacy of our actions. </p>
<p>ridethecliche- I think that's great that you're volunteering with the U.N. How did you get involved in that?</p>
<p>Acting in partnership with our allies is fine. No argument here.</p>
<p>Im from India, I was born there and I lived there for 11 years.</p>
<p>Myself, I'm glad that you admit that we have made mistakes, and I admit that my phrasing did suggest a weak arguement and undermined my point. Sorry about that. </p>
<p>Yet, I think that it's interesting to note that our country's selfish actions (I call them selfish because it was only for personal gain, saying self interest would suggest, economically, that others had things to gain also) were the cause of recent terrorist attacks. I'm referring to the time when we provided afghanistan and Bin Laden resources and weapons to fight the soviets when they had been exerting control on the region. We provided the mujahedeen(sp?) resources to fight the soviets, for we feared a domino effect and hell it was the cold war and we didn't want it to get hot. When the 'war' was 'won', we just up and left. So Sorry afghanisthan and Osama, we don't need you anymore and you can wrap up the damage dealt to you for our motives. We didn't help them rebuild infrastructure, which is why they hate us. Most American's don't understand why we're so badly hated. Well first we refuse to help out an 'ally' and then we go back to the war raped and ravaged country and add insult to the injury by assaulting those very people (called terrorists in our world) who were sustaining all the infrastructure of the country. Now, I'm not advocating that they were good men, yet they were good from the perspective of the afghanisthanis right? It's all a game of perspective.</p>
<p>I'd also like you to know that I don't believe in religion, so that doesnt play any part in my views. I try being as objectivist and direct as possible, and state what appear to be facts with logical interpretations and analysis instead of taking a leap of faith into blind belief.</p>
<p>And the reason I don't believe in religion(although hinduism and islam are not religions, infact they are ways of life. the western world decided to misname something that it couldnt comprehend), in case you were wondering, is that I got sick of hindu- muslim riots as a kid, and decided that two 'peaceful' religions had nothing more than hypocrisy to show for themselves.</p>
<p>This is a grand discussion, I'm really looking forward to see where it goes. Please no one spoil it by being personal, it's fun right now :-)</p>
<p>EDIT</p>
<p>I believe your 'crazy religious zealots' comment is a bit stereotypical, yet even if it's meant to be sarcastic I think it's slightly more offensive than sarcastic. And we're more dependent on oil because of the nature of our economy. Big businesses are extremely powerful, and the government seems to practice 'laissez faire' policies with the more powerful of the corporations. Oil companies just posted enormous profit even during this time where gas prices are literally killing citizens. I'm not saying that they shouldn't make a profit, yet gas is an essential good and it's almost being exploited.</p>
<p>As for picking our wars, it might just be me but I believe that it's a smaller ethical dilemma for women to be forced to wear burkhas in afghanisthan/taliban regime and the bigger dilemma would appear to be the countless children and women being abducted and raped in Sudan (Darfur) and Uganda.</p>
<p>lindalana: You're saying that the U.S. bombing Saddam and Saddam bombing the U.S. are morally equivalent? Ah, liberal relativists. Wonder why you lost the last two elections....</p>
<p>Well we should have had a contingency plan for whats going on right now. It almost looks like rwanda except that the use of weapons is going to be more prominent in Iraq. At times like these, I fail to see the point of religion :-/</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh and Andi - communism/collectivism <em>is</em> the opposite of "americanism" ie. Capitalism. When the purpose of your philosophy is to start cracking some bourgeoisie eggs for your "utopian" omelet plus overthrowing the US government, you can pretty much say it's "anti-american." Well, either that or just define "America" as a certain region of North America. What do you consider to be essential to the US? Do individual rights ring a bell?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In philosophy, yes, but those who call themselves communist aren't fully anti-american. Like someone else said, if they were, they'd leave America and stop supporting its capitalist economy.</p>
<p>And, like, I said, I hate communism too. You don't need to tell me how flawed and awful it is. Some people, however, just don't realize it, and it's not entirely their fault. There's no sense in chastising them for it. To each his own, right?</p>
<p>I really like that food analogy! Hungry much?</p>
<p>Grab a snickers/ Utopian Omelet Biznatch. Hahahha.</p>
<p>"lindalana: You're saying that the U.S. bombing Saddam and Saddam bombing the U.S. are morally equivalent? Ah, liberal relativists. Wonder why you lost the last two elections...."</p>
<p>neverborn: give us a description of what is morally right and wrong (superior and inferior). if we are going to discuss philosophical ideals in relation to international affairs we need to know what one another is referring to.</p>
<p>myself: could you justify your statement, "It [USA] <em>does</em> have the moral right to take them out - if and when it chooses to"? that's not necessarily true if we are talking in terms of utilitarian purposes. nevertheless, i'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.</p>
<p>(Current student)
First, regarding the protestors on campus:
<a href="http://www.jbelleisle.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.jbelleisle.com/</a> Form your own judgments. I think that freedom of speech is pretty cool. I also think that private property owners should have some control over what happens on their property. But then again, this may be seen as a breach of contract by the University. Furthermore, the government has the right to check the rights of a private University, and this can extend to making certain that the protestors have a chance to speak. Of course, there is apparently a conflict of interest here...</p>
<p>Now, regarding Communism:
Don't slam communism unless you've read Marx, preferably in an academic setting. Communist Manifesto doesn't count.</p>
<p>If you have read Marx, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm going to venture that you haven't read a lot, because individual rights most certainly exist in communism. Is communism anti-American? Probably, because we take advantage of foreign labor so much that it's plausible that the proletariat around the world that we have working for us could revolt. That's a problem with globalization, though. If we weren't imperialists, communism would not be anti-American. </p>
<p>Anyway, it's just that it's really easy for people to get mad at philosophies that don't actually exist. Rand, for instance, never actually read Kant. So yes, you may be well read on Communism, but it never hurts to make sure.</p>
<p>haha, I like the prefaced (current student) move....</p>
<p>Twas sexy</p>
<p>Hey Zach -</p>
<p>Mind giving me some page numbers on where you think Lenin or Marx supported individual rights? Or maybe you don't know what they are...</p>
<p>Matt -</p>
<p>I'm not sure what you mean when you say "utilitarian purposes." The United States does have the moral right to take down any government that oppresses it's citizens and does not protect or respect their individual rights. Think of these governments (ie. the people who run them) as criminals - by violating other's rights they have forfeited their own. Again, the US (or any other country) doesn't have any obligation to remove them from power, but if they so desired, they would have the right.</p>
<p>I think the criminal analogy is way off. As citizens of a country in which we are party to a contract with their government, by breaching the terms of that contract we cede the rights guarunteed us. This is not the same system which exists between the U.S. government and that of other countries. No other countries agree to the U.S's own system of laws and therefore we have no legal right to punish those who do not act in accordance with them. That would be ridiculous. However international organizations such as the U.N. do have a right to take action against members which violate provisions that they have agreed upon- which is why it is vital that we act as a member of these bodies in order to maintain legitimacy in our actions. Sadly, the U.N. is rather corrupt and ineffective at the moment....
but that's another story.
My point is that we're getting into pretty murky territory when we talk about how the U.S. has the "right" to do as it pleases. We tend not to intervene in the affairs of other countries based on the degree of their violation of human right- so whenever we claim that this is our purpose for intervention, such a claim must be met with skepticism. Nor can we say that it is the right move to intervene on all occasions of human rights violations. Our own enslavement of African Americans was a shocking violation of human rights, but could you imagine if the U.K. had invaded us on that account, and in lieu of the civil war, we had had a foreign invasion. It is always best for the citizens of a country to hash out issues on their own- using their own 'moral compasses' and their own needs- things that we, as outsiders would be hard pressed to truly understand.</p>