Al qaeda: what they want....

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Thats not the question...

You said that you bring democracy peacefully. And that the Mid East are waiting for you to bring it. Are they? Well?

Over 70% of Iraqi in the international poll that was taken supported the US bringing deomcracy to their country. The majority even supported the war. of course will probably be lower now that the terrorists are trying to take control - but that is the way things are. They see saw back and forth. We will see in 10 years whether we were right or not.

Oh, and the "useless UN", got you out of more than a few tight spots in the Cold War. Cuban missle crisis, anyone? Oh yeah... The UN is useless

They didn't get us out of the Cuban missile crisis - we resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was the show of force and the fact that we didn't back down and the embargo of Cuba that turned those ships around and caused the Missiles to be packed up. All Kennedy did was use the UN to show that the Soviet Union was lying about having them there and to justify our actions. Otherwise the UN played no role in it.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Over 70% of Iraqi in the international poll that was taken supported the US bringing deomcracy to their country. The majority even supported the war. of course will probably be lower now that the terrorists are trying to take control - but that is the way things are. They see saw back and forth. We will see in 10 years whether we were right or not.

They didn't get us out of the Cuban missile crisis - we resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was the show of force and the fact that we didn't back down and the embargo of Cuba that turned those ships around and caused the Missiles to be packed up. All Kennedy did was use the UN to show that the Soviet Union was lying about having them there and to justify our actions. Otherwise the UN played no role in it.

All kennedy did? So perhaps using the UN for that purpose of trying to get the WORLD ON YOUR SIDE, was perhaps, a "use" for the apparently useless UN?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
And actually Australia got their model for democracy, from Britian, you remember... their colonizers? The Aussie "revolution" was a simple change of constitutions. Oz's one is basically a copy of theirs. America forming Australian democracy....Hmmmm.

Actually - they came over to the US and developed their constitution from the US. They were a colony of Britain - but that does not mean they did not model their constitution from ours.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
All kennedy did? So perhaps using the UN for that purpose of trying to get the WORLD ON YOUR SIDE, was perhaps, a "use" for the apparently useless UN?

No- because if the UN didn't exist - we would have just blockaded Cuba and done the same thing we did do. Instead the Soviet Union was in the UN saying that we were lying - so we presented evidence that said that we weren't. So - no - the UN was still useless - because they didn't do ANYTHING and they wouldn't have done ANYTHING if the US didn't take action.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No- because if the UN didn't exist - we would have just blockaded Cuba and done the same thing we did do. Instead the Soviet Union was in the UN saying that we were lying - so we presented evidence that said that we weren't. So - no - the UN was still useless - because they didn't do ANYTHING and they wouldn't have done ANYTHING if the US didn't take action.

Well thats wrong. Dont you think the massive mediating power the UN has, given that, well, thats what it is, a place countries can come to resolve issues, may have helped avoid open war?? Do think it was just luck that the Communists didn't start a shooting war before that moment? And don't go on about MUD, because it only takes one H bomb to wipe out NYC.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually - they came over to the US and developed their constitution from the US. They were a colony of Britain - but that does not mean they did not model their constitution from ours.

Do you just make it up as you go along, or what?

Read a history of Australian federation. Just read one. It will make this next statement seem deja vous.

In 1901, Australia, under close advice and help from London, draughted their Constitution, submitteded it the the King, and Wesminster, and then voted on it. The Brits even helped with the wording? I say again, America made Australian democracy? Come on?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Well thats wrong. Dont you think the massive mediating power the UN has, given that, well, thats what it is, a place countries can come to resolve issues, may have helped avoid open war?? Do think it was just luck that the Communists didn't start a shooting war before that moment? And don't go on about MUD, because it only takes one H bomb to wipe out NYC.

What did the Un do? What mediating did they do? We just went their to justify our actions to them - that is all.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
What did the Un do? What mediating did they do? We just went their to justify our actions to them - that is all.

And why did you do that? Go to the UN, I mean? If they are as "useless" as you say, then what "USE" COULD THEY HAVE ?????

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Do you just make it up as you go along, or what?

Read a history of Australian federation. Just read one. It will make this next statement seem deja vous.

In 1901, Australia, under close advice and help from London, draughted their Constitution, submitteded it the the King, and Wesminster, and then voted on it. The Brits even helped with the wording? I say again, America made Australian democracy? Come on?

yeah - they voted on it - but the Constitution was HEAVILY influenced by the US Constution. They sent several people over to study they way our system of government worked, to observe Congress and to study the Constituton..

Here is more information...

Influence of the U.S. Constitution

American Influence: Although we are not aware of any current overseas research on the impact of the United States Constitution upon Australian politics, there is a longstanding literature on the "export" of the American Constitution. This body of work commenced at least from the publication of Carl J. Friedrich's The Impact of American Constitutionalism Abroad (1967). Another important collection of articles published in 1990 pinpoints the concept of basic rights, such as property rights, as the pre-eminently exportable part of the American Constitution. That volume, Constitutionalism and Rights: The Influence of the United States Constitution Abroad, edited by Henkin and Rosenthal(1992), includes a bibliographical essay in which the literature relating to Australia up to 1983 is briefly surveyed. A conference in Hong Kong in 1986 considered the effect of American constitutionalism in the Asia-Pacific region, and the published volume of that conference, The United States Constitution: Its Birth, Growth, and Influence in Asia, edited by J. Barton Starr (1988), also contains useful insights. In the period since 1989, the White Burkett Miller Center of Public Affairs (University of Virginia) has published a number of studies on the influence of the American Constitution abroad in their Bicentennial Series on Constitutionalism, which is edited by Dr Kenneth W. Thompson. American reappraisals of the Founding have produced a massive literature relating colonial republicanism to its European heritage. Much of this writing is in debate with Pocock's Machiavellian Moment (1975). More recent work is typified by Thomas Pangle's magisterial The Spirit of Modern Republicanism and Paul Rahe's 1200 page Republics Ancient and Modern, but see also very important works by Gordon Wood, Lance Banning and Joyce Appleby, among many others.

Legal writers in the U.S. have a strong leaning towards theoretical analysis. Hadley Arkes' Beyond the Constitution (1990) uses legal research to demonstrate that the system in America has changed from one in which federalism and "rights" existed in mutual tension, to one where the judiciary has taken over by imputing rights, and exaggerating "due process". Similarly, Robert Bork criticises judicial activism for breaking down the separation of powers doctrine in The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (1991). Philip Bobbitt, in exploring the eccentricities of Supreme Court judgements in Constitutional Interpretation (1991), believes that recent trends are becoming divergent and ambiguous. Finally, in We, the People (1991), Professor Bruce Ackerman of Yale University couches his study of constitutional law in terms of the , federalism, and fundamental law, emphasising continuity more than change.

There are also several documentaries I have seen on the Australian Constitution as well as read other websites.

There is also this...

Bad King John and the Australian Constitution

There have been two inventions in government in modern times. One of them is federalism as we now understand that term, the constitution by a people of two different levels of government each having a direct relationship with the people through election and the application of laws. Another modern invention is the written constitution. Both of these institutions were invented by the founders of the United States, justifying the boast of one of their mottos that they created novus ordo seclorum, a new order of the ages.

The idea of a written constitution, a supreme law of the country to which all other laws are subordinate and which can be changed only by some special process different from that applying to ordinary laws, now appears to us to be too obvious even to think about. Most countries now have constitutions. Historical references to the British constitution remind us that constitutions were not always the modern type of written constitutions; the expression was used to refer simply to the system of government of a country, which until modern times was prescribed simply by ordinary laws and practices.

The written constitution, although it first appeared at a particular point in history, was also the product of a very slow process of evolution. It was not discovered overnight by the gentlemen of Philadelphia in 1787.

[jerseydevil]

Overview of the Australian System
The "Washminster" hybrid

History provides another vehicle for describing the Australian system of government. Historically, the Australian system of government is a hybrid. When the Australian founding fathers wrote the Australian Constitution in the 1890s they combined elements of the British parliamentary model and the federal model of government from the United States of American into something uniquely Australian.

In 1980, Elaine Thompson used the phrase "the Washminster mutation" to remind us that while the British heritage (Westminster) is dominant, the influences of the American model (Washington) on our system of government are substantial and cannot be ignored. For example, the unresolved tensions in the Australian Constitution between the Westminster and Washington models provide much of the context for the dismissal of the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, in 1975.

Westminster
From the British tradition Australia's founding fathers borrowed:

* a constitutional monarch (who is a non political, non-executive head of State);

* the Westminster model of representative parliamentary democracy and responsible Cabinet government; and

* the English legal system.

Washington
From the US tradition they borrowed:

* a federal system where powers are divided between the central (Commonwealth) and regional (state) governments;

* an entrenched constitution which provides the fundamental law, limiting the sovereignty of Commonwealth and state parliaments;

* a supreme court (known as The High Court of Australia), which rules on the validity and constitutionality of Commonwealth and state laws;

* a Senate, or "States House", as part of the legislature with equal representation from each state;

* different parliamentary terms for both Houses of Parliament, and a rotating system of elections for Senators; and

* relatively short terms for the House of Representatives of up to 3 years. (At the time the Australian Constitution was written there were two years terms for the House of Representatives in the United States and seven-year terms for the House of Commons in the United Kingdom).

As you can see - the Australian Constitution is heavily influenced by OUR Constitution no matter how much you wish to deny it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
And why did you do that? Go to the UN, I mean? If they are as "useless" as you say, then what "USE" COULD THEY HAVE ?????

it was just to prove to the world that the Soviet Union was lying. But it's not like the UN did anything. Tell me - what ACTIVE role did the UN have in the Cuban Missile crisis.

[Coney II]

Australian Constitution?

Cuban Missile Crises?



Al Qaeda have a bigger influence than I thought.........

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Coney II
Australian Constitution?

Cuban Missile Crises?



Al Qaeda have a bigger influence than I thought.........

Thats just JD changing the subject.

For those at home who are keeping score:

jersey devil is arguing that the UN have served no purpose, well, ever, and does nothing for the matinance of world peace. Because, apparently, sitting down and talking, never resolved anything...

Oh, and that the US basically draughted the Australian Constitution, and the British had nothing to do with it. Nor did the Australians themselves, apparently.


Up to speed?

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
it was just to prove to the world that the Soviet Union was lying. But it's not like the UN did anything. Tell me - what ACTIVE role did the UN have in the Cuban Missile crisis.

Can you hear yourself? All they did was allow us to prove the USSR were lying? All they did??

To me UN involvment, gaining the massive support of the free world during the crisis played a huge part in allowing US Blockades and alike to be seen as legal, and thus diffusing the closest the world has come to thermo nuclear war, is a good thing...

And when did you ever say, before the above, what "active" role did they play? You said many times, dear fellow, that the UN played absolutly NO ROLE. Perhaps you should make up your mind, and stop altering your argument when you start to lose?


If they are utterly useless, as you have said previously, why use them at all? What USE could they, the useless United Nations, have?

[Ruinel]

hmmmmmm... not sure how the Australian Constitution and the UN discussion fall into the original purpose of this thread.... ...but... I see that JD had the last word on the influences of the American Constitution on the Australian Constitution. Fenir, don't scrap with JD over history ... he's a history addict.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
don't scrap with JD over history ... he's a history addict.

Speaking of which... JD - I have a history question to ask you and thought it'd be nice to discuss in open forum (for everyone else's edification ). It even involves New Jersey! I'm just not sure where to ask it, because it's about historical fact regarding the battle fought by Washington's troops after they crossed the Delaware, but the question itself springs from a 'docu-drama' I saw yesterday, called 'The Crossing' which was about the event. So - where should I ask; here in 'General' or in 'Entertainment'?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
it was just to prove to the world that the Soviet Union was lying. But it's not like the UN did anything. Tell me - what ACTIVE role did the UN have in the Cuban Missile crisis.

the UN served an important role during the missile crisis as a point for negotiation between the US and the USSR and Cuba... without that neutral ground it is hard to say whether or not a peaceful resolution to the conflict would have been reached

this is the UNs most important role, as a public forum for countries to express their views on any given world issue... i don't think this should be underestimated

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
the UN served an important role during the missile crisis as a point for negotiation between the US and the USSR and Cuba... without that neutral ground it is hard to say whether or not a peaceful resolution to the conflict would have been reached

this is the UNs most important role, as a public forum for countries to express their views on any given world issue... i don't think this should be underestimated

We negotiate constantly without the UN - it is hardly there role. They are supposed to be inforcing their resolutions, what about their whole himan rights thing? They let numerous countires off on their human rights. They can't do anything without the US help - such as in Somalia, they didn't do anything in Rwanda because the US didn't get involved,.

Valandil - I would say start a new thread in General. I have to say that Crossing has taken a lot of liberties with the actual Crossing. Just call it "Crossing of the Delaware"

Oh and Fenir - we DO NOT need the UN to protect ourselves. If the US was in danger - we would have taken action against Cuba - without the UN. In actuality we did take action against them without the UN. There was no one else's ships besides OURS in the blockade.

What has the UN done about the Middle East? About the Palestinians? Have they done ANYTHING - other than write things reports? What did they dfo about Bosnia?

As for me changing the subject - I didn't change the subject - it's there for all to see that you said that we never peacefully had anything to do with country's forming new governments. You even refuse to acknowledge the role that America played in the modern government of Australia. I however never said that they were not influenced by anyone else. You however said that America played no role in Australia's Constitution - where I spelled it all out for you right there. You can be sacrcastic all you want.

[The Gaffer]

The principle of "Spreading democracy" might be a good one. The fact that the argument didn't really see the light of day until after all the others (in favour of war in Iraq) had been exposed as groundless is slightly suspicious.

Also, it seems that Bush believes that the UN has a role now in Iraq.

Anyway, I am convinced that one of the things that the likes of Al-Qaida want is a perception, and, ideally, a perpetual state of conflict with the West. They need this to generate support and be able to merge into the general population. They have certainly achieved that now.

The spread of democracy is like the struggle against terrorism in one way: both need genuine international co-operation in order to have any chance of succeeding. The UN may not be perfect but it's the only means we've got of getting that.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We negotiate constantly without the UN - it is hardly there role. They are supposed to be inforcing their resolutions, what about their whole himan rights thing? They let numerous countires off on their human rights. They can't do anything without the US help - such as in Somalia, they didn't do anything in Rwanda because the US didn't get involved,.

diplomacy is a complex art... and much has to do with public "saving face"... the UN provides a place where countries who normally would not like to be seen in direct negotiation with one another can make deals that appear more palitable to their people and the other people's of the world

even the US knows this, or they would not have even attempted to get another resolution before the iraqi invasion

sure, it's far from perfect... but i see no reason to just say "to hell with it, we could care less what the world thinks"

i think any attempt to bring the peoples of the world together is a worthwhile one... we have nothing to lose, and the possibility of much to gain