And by saying that everything is based on fear because any desire can be turned around into a fear of the opposite simply makes your observation, if not wrong, completely meaningless. I buy a lollypop because I fear not experiencing that sweet, sweet taste. Penetrating analysis.

No, Percy I’m not avoiding the central issue, you’re just not understanding the position I’m coming from and we’re talking past each other. I, and I suspect the Greens, support the UN, for all its faults, and international law, for all its faults, because it is a more positive basis for international relations than the law of the jungle.

That doesn’t make the Greens puppets of the UN. When the UN is wrong, as it would have been if it had called on member states to provide appropriate support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (as it did in 1990) the Greens would have opposed that.

Getting rid of the UN and international law will not allow New Zealand to have a free and independent foreign policy (except, perhaps, in relation to a nation like Tonga, for example). We would have our foreign policy dictated by whichever big power would be willing to protect us in return for whatever they demand of us, or by any big power that was able to threaten us into doing what it wanted. That’s not free and independent.

“International law clearly involves countries outside New Zealand. It’s obvious. There is nothing to argue here. You surely must have known that is what I meant, but you go off on some pedantic tangent, trying to pretend I said something I didn’t say. This is like pulling teeth.”

Cool, that’s pretty much what I meant, I think. If only you wrote clearly enough for me this would be easier. But the relationship between New Zealand and an organisation that involves NZ and other countries is not the same as the relationship between New Zealand and other countries. Wouldn’t you agree? New Zealand is part of the first and not part of the second. That’s a difference, right? Presumably you’ll see it as pedantic and irrelevent, I don’t.

Restrictions themselves have no power over you. It is only when they are enforced that power is involved. This is a difference between the powerless, according to you, UN and the powerful United States. This is a difference between heavying by the United States and non-existent heavying by the UN. I can say “don’t steal from me” but that restriction has no power over you unless it is backed up by the fear of jail, or fear of something else.

“I don’t think we’re going to convince each other of our positions. You’re a wingnut, I can’t read. Shall we move on?�

Or in other words: “I know you’re wrong, because my beloved Green party is infallible and could never do anything hypocritical, but I’ve run out of logical arguments. �

No, I think both of us may require a remedial reading course, or you should take a leaf from your own book and stop the misepresentation. it means I don’t think we’re going to convince each other of our positions and it’s getting kind of dull. Pulling teeth is a mutual feeling here (maybe one of the few we share) and I have no desire to be a dentist.

It means your logical position and my logical position are based on personal viewpoints that are some distance from each other and it’s pretty pointless discussing it on a blog. It means that things I see as important you see as irrelevant, and vice versa. It’s based on the idea that this forum is not going to move either of us from our philosophical base but that we can learn to leave the jungle and be civilised and acknowledge differences. Well, maybe you can’t, but I can.

The Green Party is fallible. I’m the first to admit that (well, maybe you’ll beat me into that line, but I’m more than happy to admit it).

I’m going on holiday in an hour or so (presumably I’m fearful of staying at home), so don’t expect this to continue with me. You can choose to accept our differences gracefully though disagreeing with my pinko cuddly religion as much as I disagree with your blood-bathed, fear-filled religion. Or wig out some more. Over to you.

Actually I reckon he’s a Troll… real Wingnuts don’t preach complete amorality…

respectfully
BJ

But to address your points:

“Are you really telling me that you woke up this morning and said “shit, don’t want to starve, better have breakfastâ€?? I don’t recall doing the same.”

Subconciously yes, we all did.

“Are you really telling me that the only reason you don’t steal is because you’re scared of going to jail? Do you really have no personal morality?”

Didn’t say that. Fear of jail is one of the reasons. But personal morality is based on fear of somebody else suffering.

“International = between, among countries. Not outside countries.”

International law clearly involves countries outside New Zealand. It’s obvious. There is nothing to argue here. You surely must have known that is what I meant, but you go off on some pedantic tangent, trying to pretend I said something I didn’t say. This is like pulling teeth.

Laws, international and otherwise, are a set of restrictions. If something restricts you, it has power over you. This too is obvious, but off you go again.

“I don’t think we’re going to convince each other of our positions. You’re a wingnut, I can’t read. Shall we move on?”

Or in other words: “I know you’re wrong, because my beloved Green party is infallible and could never do anything hypocritical, but I’ve run out of logical arguments. ”

It’s more evidence that the Greens are a religious group rather than a party of rational ideas.

Are you really telling me that the only reason you don’t steal is because you’re scared of going to jail? Do you really have no personal morality?

International = between, among countries. Not outside countries. Australia is not international to New Zealand. You’re thinking of ‘foreign’.
Law = what power is restricted by, backed up within countries by the power of the State. It is not the ‘power’ of the law that prevents you using your power to steal from those weaker than you, it is apparently the threat of someone with more power.

International Law = a restriction, developed between countries, of the use of power by the stronger against the weaker without justification, lacking, as you have said, any independent power to back it up.

So, not outside, and not power.

From your perspective questioning my reading comprehension is a statement of fact because the differences between our viewpoints mean I don’t accept what you are saying and you apparently fail to understand how that is possible. However, that is different from me not being able to comprehend what you are writing. From my perspective it is a personal attack.

From my perspective calling you a wingnut is a statement of fact. A common description of people who hold positions similar to yours. Possibly I have a false impression of your position, but I don’t think so. From your perspective it’s apparently a personal attack.

I don’t think we’re going to convince each other of our positions. You’re a wingnut, I can’t read. Shall we move on?

That statement is ridiculous. People eat because they are hungry, not because they are afraid. People don’t steal because they respect the rights of other people, not because they fear punishment. At its most productive they don’t steal because they hope not to be stolen from in return. Fear has damned little to do with it unless we are talking about complete amorality.

Which is where you repeatedly seem to be returning. Complete amorality. The politics of fear and force. I am astonished to find you out of jail… you ARE out of jail now, aren’t you?

What the Green party called for then and what its policy should be now are two very different things. I’d be happy enough for the UN to support stabilization efforts in Iraq IF AND ONLY IF a US apology went way beyond the usual . The world community can accept this and attempt to set things right, but the USA and Bush in particular will have to pay, one way or another for the error. Bush will have to admit an error. Right now he admits to infallibility, apparently forgetting that he “fell” off his couch (among other things).

In such a climate NZ could participate in a UN effort. It has no business being in Iraq in support of the current regime in Washington.

Afghanistan is very different from Iraq. Don’t mix the two.

Lastly, while the war was about oil, it was not FOR oil. The Iraqi tap is dried up quite nicely, and at $60 a bbl the oil companies are making money hand over fist. The war did exactly what it was supposed to do. It increased the value of the oil that they sell by removing/reducing the competing Iraqi supply.

This is also why Junta is acting up with Iran. The players here are the big oil companies, who OWN Dubya and Cheney et.al… and they’ve profited nicely from the war (as has Halliburton).

respectfully
BJ

Everything anyone does is based on threats and fear. Why do you eat? Fear of starving. Why do you not steal? Threat of jail.

Greens: “The Green Party is calling on the Prime Minister to ignore any United Nations Security Council endorsement of America’s “war for oil� against Iraq that is not backed up by real evidence of a clear and present threat to other countries.�

If dope was legalized, and you didn’t smoke it, would you be breaking the law? No. If an invasion is authorised, but you don’t take part, would you be breaking the rules? Not taking part in an authorized invasion is not breaking the rules of the UN. That’s not evidence of not being a puppet at all.

“International law is not an outside power”

Now you really are clutching at straws.

International=outside (of a country)
Law=(government) power

Outside power is EXACTLY what international law is.

“If you can’t see that those two statements say almost exactly the same thing, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.”

This is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact.

And when you stop doing both, you can accuse others of hypocrisy.

See that’s basically the difference between us on this one. You don’t seem to be able to imagine taking an action that is not based on threats and fear. (I’m not misrepresenting, maybe misinterpreting…)

Greens: “The Green Party is calling on the Prime Minister to ignore any United Nations Security Council endorsement of America’s “war for oilâ€? against Iraq that is not backed up by real evidence of a clear and present threat to other countries.â€?

National (paraphrased): “We don’t know what our foreign policy will be, because the Americans won’t tell us what it should be unless we are in government.” - where’s the allegedly?

One, not puppet. Two, puppet. There’s no hypocrisy in pointing that out.

International law is not an outside power, it is a way of powers to work through differences without returning to the jungle and blowing each other up.

When you stop coming up with disproven rubbish like “The Greens do, which is why they want New Zealand to become a UN puppet, instead of having a free and independent foreign policy of our own,” then you can accuse me of misrepresenting a position.

No, didn’t say that. I didn’t say there was heavying from the US at any point. I also didn’t say there was no heavying from the UN. I said there was “bugger all,” because the UN is weak. Learn to read. But there is some from the UN, else why would the Greens advocate obeying UN laws ahead of our own government’s wishes? They must be scared of some sort of retribution, loss of reputation, etc, from the UN or its members.

“The difference between the two statements, I think, is that one is fetishising the UN (that’ll be the one the Greens didn’t say) and the other is supporting international law (that’ll be the one the Greens did say).”

Rubbish. Both say that the wishes of an outside power should override our own country’s wishes. Exactly what the Greens are accusing Don Brash of. That’s hypocrisy. That’s the whole point.

“The UN is a foreign power? France equals the UN?”

No, France is a member of the UN. But in one sense, yes, because it was mainly their vote that stopped an invasion resolution. Again, irrelevant.

Please stop misrespresenting what I say, and arguing pedantic irrelevant points.

Here’s the issue, again:

Greens: “Part of our foreign policy should be decided by an outside power.”
National (allegedly): “Part of our foreign policy should be decided by an outside power.”

The Greens are attacking National for allegedly advocating a principle that they have advocated themselves. That’s hypocrisy. No amount of personal attacks from you will change that Pip.

“that Faux News is available down here” scarey enough, it is, on prime. Sometimes it’s on at about 2 or 3 am, but tomorrow nights guide* puts it at 11:45pm - scarier still rated as G. It’s provided a few late night horror shows when theres nothing else to do. Last time I watched it more than one of them looked like they were on something. Also, they did world weather, but Iraq wasn’t on it. Yeah.

* http://home.nzcity.co.nz/tvnow/default.asp?ch=5&t=y#onnow (hope that link works…)